HomeMy WebLinkAboutTRACT 9676-SEA ISLAND_NEWPORT DUNES�-J
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(714) 644-3200
June 16, 1988
SUBJECT: Sea Island Townhomes, Tract 9676
Addresses for Phase II (revised)
Building Number Unit Number Address
1
3
15 Sea Cove Lane
1
4
13 Sea Cove Lane
1
1
19 Sea Cove Lane
1
2
17 Sea Cove Lane
17
59
1 Bay Cove Lane
17
60
3 Bay Cove Lane
17
61
7 Bay Cove Lane
17
62
5 Bay Cove Lane
18
63
9 Bay Cove Lane
18
64
11 Bay Cove Lane
18
65
15 Bay Cove Lane
18
66
13 Bay Cove Lane
19
67
17 Bay Cove Lane
19
68
19 Bay Cove Lane
19
69
23 Bay Cove Lane
i9
70
21 Bay Cove Lane
20
71
21 Seabrook Cove
20
72
23 Seabrook Cove
20
73
27 Seabrook Cove
20
74
25 Seabrook Cove
21
75
29 Seabrook Cove
21
76
31 Seabrook Cove
21
77
35 Seabrook Cove
21
78
33 Seabrook Cove
22
79
37Seabrook Cove
22
80
39 Seabrook Cove
22
81
43 Seabrook Cove
22
82
41 Seabrook Cove
23
83
45 Seabrook Cove
23
84
47 Seabrook Cove
23
85
51 Seabrook Cove
23
86
49 Seabrook Cove
24
87
87 Ocean Vista
24
88
85 Ocean Vista
24
89
81 Ocean Vista
24
90
83 Ocean Vista
25
91
79 Ocean Vista
25
92
77 Ocean Vista
25
93
73 Ocean Vista
A
Building Number
Unit Number
Address
25
94
75 Ocean Vista
26
95
71 Ocean Vista
26
96
69 Ocean Vista
26
97
65 Ocean Vista
26
98
67 Ocean Vista
16
57
63 Ocean Vista
16
58
61 Ocean Vista
16
55
57 Ocean Vista
16
56
59 Ocean Vista
27
99
60 Ocean Vista
27
100
58 Ocean Vista
27
101
62 Ocean Vista
27
102
64 Ocean Vista
28
103
68 Ocean Vista
28
104
66 Ocean Vista
28
105
1 70 Ocean Vista
28
106
72 Ocean Vista
29
107
76 Ocean Vista
29
108
74 Ocean Vista
29
109
78 Ocean Vista
29
110
80 Ocean Vista
30
ill
84 Ocean Vista
30
112
82 Ocean Vist >
30
113
86 Ocean Vista
30
114
86 Ocean Vista
31
115
92 Ocean Vista
31
116
90 Ocean Vista
31
117
94 Ocean Vista
31
118
96 Ocean Vista
32
119
100 Ocean Vista
32
120
98 Ocean Vista
32
121
102 Ocean Vista
32
122
104 Ocean Vista
33
123
108 Ocean Vista
33
124
106 Ocean Vista
34
125
103 Ocean Vista
34
126
101 Ocean Vista
34
127
97 Ocean Vista
34
128
99 Ocean Vista
35
129
95 Ocean Vista
35
130
93 Ocean Vista
35
131
89 Ocean Vista
35
132
91 Ocean Vista
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By w
Javier . Garcia
Associate Planner
JSG:11
0
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
JOHN J. VAN HOUTEN, PE, Principal
DAVID L. WIELAND, Senior Engineer
MIKE SANG LEE, Associate Engineer
March 14, 1988
THE LUSK COMPANY '
P.O. Box C19560
Irvine, CA 92713-9560
Q
1260 EAST KATELLA AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805
17141 635.9520
Project File 1668-86
Attention: Mr. Baker Guthrie—'
Subject: Noise Measurements at 108 and 106 Ocean Vista, Sea
Island, Newport Beach
Reference: "Recommended Noise Barrier and Sound Transmission
Class (STC) for Glazing Assemblies at Sea Island," J.
J. Van Houten & Associates, dated April 1, 1987
Gentlemen:
On March 14, 1988, noise measurements were obtained at interior
and exterior locations within the subject units. The instruments
used to obtain the data and the data listings are provided in Ap-
pendix I. As a result of these measurements it is concluded that
the interior spaces of 108 Ocean Vista and 106 Ocean Vista comply
with the City and State noise standards. That is, the community
noise equivalent level (CNEL) within the interior living space is
45 dB or less. In addition, it is concluded that the balcony
area of 106 Ocean Vista complies with the City's exterior stand-
ard of 65 dB CNEL. At the patio area of 108 Ocean Vista, the
noise level does not comply with the exterior standard. However,
with the construction of the sound barrier recommended in the
referenced report, the CNEL at the patio area of 108 Ocean Vista
will comply with the City's exterior standards.
Summary of Test Results
The interior and exterior CNEL has been assessed based upon the
noise level measurements obtained at four locations within the
subject units. Also used in the assessment are the results of a
previous 24-hour measurement obtained at the Sea Island site.
(Appendix I provides the methodology used in our assessment of
the interior and exterior CNEL.) The following provides a sum-
mary of the CNEL for the subject units:
112J&
Location
CNEL
106 Ocean
Vista
Balcony
65 dB
106 Ocean
Vista
Living Room
42
108 Ocean
Vista
Patio
66
108 Ocean
Vista
Living,Room
43
0
THE LUSK COMPANY PROJECT FILE 1668-86
Please note that we have inspected each unit where noise measure-
ments were obtained to determine if properly glazed window as-
semblies were installed. It was determined that the assemblies
are in a true and tight fitting condition when closed.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact the under-
signed 1t 714/635-9520.
Very truly yours,
J. J. VAN �- HOUTE'N!& ASSOCIATES, INC.
V ,
n J. V Houten, P.E.
C nsulting Engineer
JJVH/ML/rrp
C:\WS2000'\REPORTS\1650-99\16683-14
2
Mike Lee
Associate Engineer
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
0
APPENDIX I
Noise Measurement Equipment and Listing of the Noise Measurements
Noise measurements were obtained by use of precision sound level
meters (noise monitors, per American National Standard ANSI SI.4-
1971)• It is hereby certified that the information contained in
the data listing is the result of completely and carefully con-
ducted measurements and is, to the best of the undersigned's
knowledge, true and correct in all respects.
L
hn J. `Yan Houten, P.E.
nsultyng Engineer in Acoustics
0
Cl
Methodology
APPENDIX I
Table Description
I-1 Instrument Listing
I-2 Complete Listing of 24-Hour Data Obtained on April 28-
292 1987
I-3 Complete Listing of Data Obtained on March 14, 1988
0
METHODOLOGY
A 24-hour noise measurement was obtained on April 28-29, 1987 at
the balcony area of model plan 2A at Sea Island. The measurement
result indicates the following:
CNEL: 67.5 dB
Hourly Leq 12:00 - 13:00: 66.3 dB(A)
13:00 - 14:00: 66.5 dB(A)
As can be seen, the difference between the hourly Leq's and the
CNEL is about 1 dB. (Refer to Table I-2 for the complete listing
of the data obtained on April 28-29, 1987).
Noise measurement obtained on March 14, 1988 at the balcony area
of model plan 2A at Sea Island indicates the following hourly Leq
(Refer to Table I-3):
Hourly Leq 12:00 - 13:00: 67.0 dB(A)
13:00 - 14:00: 67.0 dB(A)
This is about 0.5 dB(A) greater than the hourly Leq measured at
the same position on April 28-29, 1987. Therefore, it is es-
timated that the CNEL at the balcony area of model plan 2A on
March 14, 1988 is also about 0.5 dB higher, or about 68 dB.
Noise measurements obtained at the balcony and patio areas of the
subject units indicate the following:
Balcony, Patio,
106 Ocean Vista 108 Ocean Vista
Hourly Leq 12:00 - 13:00 64 dB(A) -
13:00 - 14:00 - 65 dB(A)
The CNEL at the exterior locations can be calculated as follows:
Balcony, 106 Ocean Vista: (64 - 67) + 68 = 65 dB
Patio, 108 Ocean Vista: (65 - 67) + 68 = 66 dB
Noise measurements obtained at the interior spaces of the subject
units indicate a noise reduction from the exterior to the inte-
rior of about 23 dB. (Refer to Table I-3.) Therefore, the inte-
rior CNEL can be calculated as follows:
Living Room, 106 Ocean Vista: 65 - 23 = 42 dB
Living Room, 108 Ocean Vista: 66 - 23 = 43 dB
�J
TABLE I-1
NOISE MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
The following items of equipment were used to obtain the noise
measurements:
1. A-Weiahted rise Level - Analysis
Portable Noise Monitor, BBN Type 614, Serial Number 773504
Portable Noise Monitor, LDL 700, Serial Number 70OB0624
Portable Noise Monitor, LDL 700, Serial Number 70OB0625
Portable Noise Monitor, LDL 700, Serial Number 70OB0626
Acoustic Calibrator, B & K Type 4230, (94 dB @ 1000 Hz)
Acoustic Calibrator, GR Type 1567, (114 dB @ 1000 Hz)
� / 1
• 0
TABLE I-2. SUVZIAP.Y OF'HOURLY LEQ AND CNEL OBTAINED ON APRIL
28-29, 1937.
PROJECT: JOHN D. LUSK & SON
POSITION: MODEL PLAN 2A, BALCONY
SOURCE: TRAFFIC ON JAMBOREE
DATE: APR 28-29,,87 PEAK HOUR: 08:00-09:00
SOUND LEVELS: L90= 59.0 L50= 66.0 11t0= 69.0 Leq= 67.3 dB(A)
Time
Sound
Level,
From To
dB(A)
07:00-08:00
66.5
08:00-09:00
67.3
09:00-10:00
66.1
10:00-11:00
66.7
11:00-12:00
66.7
12:00-13:00
66.3
13:00-14:00
66.5
14:00-15:00
66.5
15:00-16:00
66.5
16:00-17:00
66.3
17:00-18:00
66.5
18:00-19:00
66.1
19:00-20:00 65.0
20:00-21:00 63.5
21:00-22:00 62.8 COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL: 67.5 dB
22:00-23:00
61.6
23:00-00:00
59.6
00:00-01:00
57.7
01:00-02:00
54.0
02:00-03:00
52.6
03:00-04:00
48.7
04:00-05:00
50.8
05:00-06:00
57.7
06:00-07:00
62.4
TABLE I-3. SUMMARY OF TEN-MINUTE Leq OBTAINED ON MARCH 14, 1988
MODEL PLAN 2A
----------
106 OCEAN VISTA
------------------------------------
108 OCEAN VISTA
TIME
----------
EXT-BALCONY
----------
EXT-BALCONY INT-LIV. RM.
--------------------
N.R.+
------
------------------------------------
EXT-PATIO INT-LIV. RM.
---------- ----------
N.R.
------
12:20-12:30
67.0 dB(A)
-- 40.5 dB(A)
12:30-12:40
66.5
63.5 dB(A) 40.5
23.0
12:40-12:50
67.0
64.5 41.0
23.5
-- --
--
12:50-13:00
67.5
64.0 41.0
23.0
13:00-13:10
67.0
13:10-13:20
67.5
13:20-13:30
67.0
13:30-13:40
67.0
-- --
--
64.5 dB(A) 41.5 dB(A)
23.0
13:40-13:50
67.0
-- --
--
64.5 41.0
23.5
13:50-14:00
67.0
-- --
--
65.0 41.5
23.5
14:00-14:10
68.0
14:10-14:20
68.5
} N.R. - NOISE REDUCTION - DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOISE LEVELS AT EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR SPACES
r 1
•I
0
THE LUSK COMPANY
February 2, 1988
Mr. James D. Hewicker
Planning Director
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
Writer's Direct Dial Number
(714)250- 6036
This letter is a follow up to a letter written by Steve
Vannatta on July 28, 1987, where we had requested that
the City of Newport Beach allow us to let purchasers of
our new homes occupy their premises prior to the com-
pletion of the noise atteivation wall that is in com-
pliance with City standards.
Due to some design changes and input by the Sea Island
residents, we were delayed in the construction of this
wall. We now anticipate the start of construction to
begin with 30-45 days.
it would be greatly appreciated if you would permit Jay
Garcia of your offices to issue the final occupancy for
the affected units, since we are near the start of
construction of the wall and the building permit for
this wall has been issued.
Your consideration in this matter would be greatly
appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call.
Very truL�yos,
l�
Peter Ter \ RS'o 4 . T. La n/
Project Manager
PTL:mf
cc: Baker Guthrie
-
Jim Waples '
17550 Gillette Ave. • P. O. Box C-19560 • Irvine, CA 92713.9650
Phone: (714)261-5999• FAX (714) 261 -1324
THE -LUSK COMPANY
July 28, 1987
Mr. James D. Hewicker
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Dear Jim:
Writer's Direct Dial Number
p14 Sqq lq
Enclosed is an elevation depicting the proposed design of the
sound attenuation wall we will construct along the top of slope
behind residences which will be situated near Jamboree Road.
This wall will be constructed so that the affected residences
will be in compliance with the city's sound rating standards.
Since we have just received the preliminary design from our
consultant, we estimate it will take approximately 90 days to
complete the construction of the wall. We estimate its cost to
be $30,000.
As we are most anxious to allow our purchasers to occupy their
new homes, we are hopeful the City will allow for utilities to be
activated so that move -ins can occur prior to the completion of
the walls.
Your consideration in this
Very truly yours,
T USK CO ANY
Steven Vannatta
Division Manager
SV/1im
cc: Bill Lusk
Jim Waples
Baker Guthrie
Steve Peters
matter would be :r:eatl a]
(1^mil �,l/ovi
17550 Gillette Ave. • P. O. Box C-19560 • Irvine, CA 92713-9650
Phone: (714)261-5999• FAX (714) 261 -1324
its 1imrita To ND(sc— Qmt-14 Fare 1AM0
RECEIVED
Plannirryr.
Depattrnent
JUL 291987j +�-
CITY OF
NBVPQRT SEACH.
CALIF. A
•
E
�r
�EGI�IG ycx�Ttr�ts
w1�
State of California, George Deuknol, Governor
California Coastal Commission
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT
245 West Broadway, Suite 380
P.O. Box 1450
Long Beach, California 90801-1450
�(213) 590-5071 j
Ile
/ /a /
i � i �� ,
P
EDMUND G. {ROWN 1R., Go.ernor
,.STATE OF CALIFORNIA _
STATE ORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION {%-
({ Rr
SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION "E Uu w. i
4 666 E. OCEAN {OULEVARD, SUITE 0107 May 31, 1979
F.O. lox 1450
LONG {EACH, CALIFORNIA 90301
(210) 5M5071 (714) W-0"{
To: Commissioners
From: Executive Director
Subject: Staff Summary and Recommendations
Application No.: P-79-5282
Attachments: 1. Site Location Map
2. EIR
3. EIR Addendum
4. Project Description Brochure
5. Vicinity Aerial
6.
1. Administrative Action: 5 Notified
The application has been reviewed and is complete. The 42-day hearing
period expires Public Hearing is scheduled for
6-11-79 Continuations, (if any) were granted as follows:
a.
f.1
2. ARplicant:
cant's full name
1470 Jamboree
ress
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Or Urban Assist Inc. (David
enresentative s name
: Center Dr., Suite
s
Newport Beach, CA 92660
3. Project Location:
C.
Co. Ground Les
(a) City or District Newport Beach
(b) County Orange
(c) Street Address
1100 Jamboree Road
714/640-6800
640-
er
101
Area is Zoned PC (Planned Community -Medium Denisty 8 du/ac)
9
Project History:
The proposed project has been involved in the -City of Newport Beach's
planning process for over two and one-half years.
The first indicated action was in March 1977 when the City.Council approved
rezoning to the PC (Planned Community) District and Resubdivision which
created the proposed site as a separate parcel. At that point in time the
subdivision was for apartment purposes. Staff has received indication
that it was the deve opers intent to develop the property to full density
allowed by the PC zone or 225 units.
During the period following the above action the applicant considered
redesign of the project so as to convert it from 225 apartment units to a
225 unit condominium. This decision required an amendment to the previ-
ously approved resubdivision since the resubdivision was now for condomin-
ium purposes.
On January 8, 1979 the City Council approved the condominium resubdivision
after rescending the previous approval. During this phase of the planning
process the number of units was reduced to 132 to be developed in accor-
dance with the PC District development standards.
It is this project that is now before the Commisrsion.
Issues:
1. Appropriate Use
2. Traffic and Circulation
3. Local Coastal Program Planning Options
Appropriate Use:
The proposed development is located within the Irvine Coast Country -Club
planning area as designated in the UP Issue Identification document..
This area is bounded on the west by Jamboree Road. Immediately west of
this planning area is the Upper Newport Bay planning area; thus the prop
posed project and its surroundings can be said'to lie in these two plan-
ning areas.
Attachment 5 hereto is an aerial photo which indicates the proposed site
and surrounding properties. The land use element indicates the follow-
ing for the subject property;
NEWP"RT CFNTER AW..
The Newport Genter area includes all land bounded by Coast
Highway, )amborer- Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, and
MacArthur boulev9r.;.
The major land ut.e proposals for this area, other t':on
residential uses which are covered in the "Residential
Growth Element"
are as follows:
s
The residential growth element referred to has the following regarding
the subject site (emphasis added):'
2) Residential development shall be permitted on the
vacant area on Jamboree Road and the Coast Hic.-VIly
which backs up on the Country Club with a maximum
densitv of 15 dwelling units per gross acre_ Additiun-
al sites for residential development in Newport Center
shall be permitted at a density not to exceed 35 dwell-
ing units per acre, subject to the approval of ti&
City.
It should be noted then that the city's rezoning of the project to Planned
Community has its foundation in the Adopted General Plan.
The surrounding vacant parcels are shown on Attachment 5 and with the pro-
posed site represent an aggregate acreage of approximately 140 acres of
vacant land.
,Vacant Site North of Newporter Inn:
It is proposed that most of this site be developed
residentially, as discussed in the "Residential
Growth Element", with a small southerly portion
used for recreational commercial purposes, such
as the expansion of the Newporter Inn. The exact
boundary between these two uses is not precise and
can be determined when a development proposal is
received.
Again, development of this site is addressed in the Residential Growth
Element as follows (emphasis added):
STATISTICAL DIVISION K (Bluffs, Eastbluff, Park Newport):
The potential for residential growth in Division K is the result
of the large vacant site between the Newporter Inn and Park Newport,
and the three (prior to the current height limit ordinance) "high-
rise" sites in the Bluffs.
Traffic & Circulation:
On June 26, 1978 the City of Newport Beach adopted a traffic ordinance
whereby new developments in excess of a specific size must determine that
the development will not increase traffic by more than 1% at specified
intersections. Because the proposed project was approved prior to this,
the city excepted the project from the provisions of this ordinance.
The traffic consultant did perform a study and furnished the following
(excerpted):
The project Will contain 132 multi -family dwelling units with vehicular access
to Jamboree Road. Trip generation rates of 6.5 daily trip ends per dwelling
unit and 0.4 inbound and 0.2 outbound in the PM peak lour were utilised in the
previous report. These factors are still valid and result in the following
traffic volumes from the project.
Daily 860
PM Peak
In 50
Out 25
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculations were made for existing
and with project conditions for the PM peak hour. These are sumsari:ed in
Table,l. Review of these data indicates that the project would have no effect
on the ICU of Coast Highway and increase the values at Santa Barbara by 0.01
and San Joaquin Hills by 0.02. More important, all ICUs are less than 0.90
and the intersection; operate better than Level of Service D. This result is due
to the relatively minor traffic from the site and that the increases are not all
to critical movements.
Section 30254 of the Coastal Act states as follows (emphasis added):
30254. New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to
accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the
provisions of this division: provided, however, that it is the intent of the Legis-
lature that State Highway Route i in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a scenic
two-lane road. Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where
assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce new development
inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities
.0.n .nA•..
The crux of the traffic and circulation issue is discussed on page 46 of
the EIR (emphasis added):
. i
-.. 0
It would appear then that much emphasis has been placed upon determining
the mechanism for moving the public into, out of, and through the recrea-
tional and visitor -serving areas. At this point this has not been accomp-
lished, thus another indication of the ramifications of the piecemeal
approval of a project such as this.
Local Coastal Planning Options:
Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act states:
30604. (a) prior to certification of the local coastal program, a coastal
development permit shall be issued if the issuing agency, or the commission on
appeal, finds that the proposed development is in conformity with the provisions
of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of this division and that the permitted
devellocalocastalnt ill notprogram thatdisethe in conformity withOf ethecal provisi nsent to of Chapter a
(commencing with Section 30200).
The City of Newport Beach is currently executing its Work Program and land
use map. The draft land use map appears to be approximately five months
away as evidenced by the following clipping from the May 1979 issue of
Coastal News.
The Newport Beach draft land use plan, addressing wsnr•ienmry ., ^ •• -- -- -
protection, should be completed by October 1979• with local hearings and adoption by
February 1980.
9. There are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures pro-
vided in the CEQA, available for imposition by this Commission under the
power granted to it which would substantially lessen any significant
adverse impact that the development, as finally'proposed, may have on the
environment, as discussed on page 10 of this report. However, such alter-
natives as well as the proposed project are premature and prejudicial in
view of Finding 7#3 above.
10. The proposed development is not in conformity with the provisions of
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and will prejudice the ability of the local
government to prepare a local coastal program that is in conformity with
the provisions of said chapter.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
M. J. carpenter
Executive Director
Information Contact
DeWitt Pickens
me
-11-
Fri;
jet �WU-PiF'u
' Kf . `:=•�r'1 ;s. +..• �''v`t=r,.t.r•r''" ,•jly ;�•..,.. Or lA�5��r �'��.
'•f . .. yr L� I� ♦ �,. �. r •e.y 1% �4[w+�T
74 �'� -s-a. . y. - a • �C - t tI . 1 �. ,� v��w..'vi7- �J�•� .r1 i•I'r
'�'' .J•. � J ^1�1�•� j " �— •_ ,. w^�� �i` - .i. "- � �• 1 + �IRt.3'.7,+ _ 'K ter +� � �� �Y��: , •
�..�' [j�1r'��,A •.Y.r _off �.`���,`{• _i w• ��C '.��_r' � % ,+J►"i' 'R .+ •
,
So. C'ouf
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105 - (415) 543-8555
COASTAL DEVELOP MEN T PERMIT
On August 15, 1979 , by a vote of 9 to +1 , the California
Coastal Commission granted to McLain Development Company
Permit A- 201-79 , subject to the conditions set forth below, for development
consisting of construction of a 132-unit condominium development
more specifically described in the application file in the Commission offices.
The development is within the coastal zone in Orange County at
1000-1100 Jamboree Road Newport Beach
After public hearing held on July 16, 1979 , the Commission found
that, as conditioned, the proposed development 'is in conformity with the provisions
of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976; will not prejudice the ability
of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal
Program that is in conformity with the provisions of Chanter 3 of the California
Coastal Act of 1976;,if between the sea and the public road nearest the sea, is in
conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
California Coastal Act of 1976; and either (1) will not have any significant 3rirerse
impact on the environment, or (2) there are no feasible alternatives or Teasi'ble
mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any sigri ficant acrerse
impact that the development as approved may have on the environment.
Issued on behalf of the California Coastal
This permit will not be effective until
released at close of escrow and fulfillment
of escrow conditions as provided bn the
attached letLer. Q
y
Executive Director
'$y
• t
The undersigned permdttee acknowledges receipt of th2 California Coastal Commission,
Permit A, 201-79 , and fully understands its contents, including all conditions
imposed.
Date Permittee
-2-
Permit A- 201-79 1 is subject to the following conditions:
A. Standard Conditions.
1. AssiFnment of Permit. This permit may not be assigned to another person
except as provided in the California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 13170.
2. Notice of ReceiDt and Acknowledgment. Construction authorized by this
permit shall not commence until a copy of this permit, signed by the permittee or
authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit mid acceptance of its contents,
is returned to the Commission.
3. Expiration. If construction has not commenced, this permit will expire
two (2) years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Appli-
cation for extension of this permit must be made prior to the expiration date.
4. Construction. All construction must occur in accord with the proposal as
set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth
below. Any deviations from the approved plans must be reviewed by the Commission
pursuant to California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 13164-13168.
.5. Interpretation. Interpretation or revisions of the terms or conditions of
this permit must be reviewed by the State Coastal Commission or its Executive
Director. All questions regarding this permit should be addressed to the State
Commission office in San Francisco unless a condition expressly authorizes review
by the Regional Commission or its staff.
B. Soecial Conditions.
1. Housing Dedication.
a. Prior to issuance of permit, the applicant shall record an offer to
dedicate to the Housing Authority of orange County sufficient land zoned to allow:
construction of 30 housing units located within the coastal lone within 5 miles of
the project site. The offer of dedication shall run with the land, binding 'successors
and assigns, shall be recorded free of all prior liens and encumbrances axcet+t: tax lienr
and shall be iseued by title i.nsut.ance acceptable Lo Lhe ]xe,:uLive D rector. Prior to
recordation, th(: applicant shall submit the documents convuying thu offer of dedication
to the Executive Director for his review and approval. The anprovr.-d offer shall be
recorded and evidence thereof submitted to the Executive Director. Any division oL
land necessary to -ccomplish this action is also hereby approved by this Commission;
-- AND --
b. In addition to the above dedication of land, prior to thu i:ssuancu: of a
permit the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Commission which shall Iirovi
that either 10 of the units within the project, of 10 units off -site acceptable to the
Executive Director (the ten units proposed by the applicant at 900 Cagney Lane, Newport
Beach, being hereby found acceptable), shall be offered for sale to persons who qualify
as low-income persons at prices which are affordable to low-income persons; a Unit shall
be considered affordable if the sales price does not exceed 2.5 times the incomu of the
low-income target range for which the unit is intended. The ten units shall be priced
in a range which is affordable to persons earning from 60-80% of the median income whic•}
is hereby determined, for purposes of this permit to be $19,500 per year, as follows:
S t _
I
-3-
Permit A-201-79
3 units priced for persons earning less than 60% of the median income
3 units priced for persons earning less than 70% of the median income
4 units priced for persons earning less than 80% of the median income
The units shall be subject to conCrols on resale to assure continued affordability as
provided in the Commission's Statewide Interpretive Guidelines. Until the units off -site
are so offered for sale, ten units within the project shall be retained to satisfy this
condition, and shall be sold subject to the terms of this condition unless the units
off -site are provided within three years of the issuance of this permit.
In order to assure compliance with the terms of this condition, the agreement shall
be recorded prior to the issuance of this permit on the deed of the project site as a
covenant to run with the land, binding the applicant and any successors in interest,
with no prior liens other than tax liens, for a period of 30 years from the date of
issuance of this permit. As an alternative to recordation of this deed restriction,
the applicant may enter into such other binding, enforceable agreements, subject to the
written agreement of the Executive Director, as will assure the full performance of the
terms of this condition.
c. If, based on evidence submitted by the applicants, the Executive Director
determines that the applicants do not own any land which would fulfill.the specifications
of section a of this condition and that there is no vacant land available which would
meet the specifications of Section a, then the applicants shall, instead, provide twice
the number of units for a total of 20 to be sold as described in Section b of this
condition, with the number of units in each range as follows:
2 units priced for persons earning less than 50% of the median income
2 units priced for persons earning less than 60% of the median income
3 units priced for persons earning less than 70% of the median income
3 units priced for persons earning less than 80% of the median income
3 units priced for persons earning less than 90% of the median income
3 units priced for persons earning less than 100% of the media$ income
2 units pr.--,ed for persons earning less than 110% of the median income
2 units priced for persons earning less than 120% of the median income
2. Runoff. Prior to issuance of permit, the applicant shall submit to the
Executive Director of the Commission for his review and approval a runoff control plan
showing the storage of runoff on site and off site. The runoff control plan shall dem-
onstrate the peak runoff from the site will not increase after construction and shall
be in conformance with the recommendations of the Department of Fish and Game, as shown
in Exhibit 5. The runoff control plan shall be accompanied by an engineer's certificatio
that the final working drawings are in substantial conformance with the plans approved
by the Executive Director. All development shall be in strict conformance with those.
plans.
�l
C•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY
S- AND GAME
350. Golden Shore
long Beach, CA 90802
(213) 590-5113 ..
May 11, 1979
John F. Shoemaker, Vice President
McLain..Development Company
1470 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mr. Shoemaker:
EDMUND G. SROW" JR., G.r.n
We have reviewed the work measures outlined -in your letter of April 2 and
2/7 1979 and believe that they will control project induced sediments and
urban pollutants and thus provide necessary protection for Upper Newport
Bay.
To assure this increased effectiveness we have mutually agreed that work
measure 2 in your letter of April Zl,be amended to read as follows; "Provide
for capture on graded pads of runoff of 60 minutes duration for Q201,:
Since you have confirmed that the subject work measures will be incorporated
into the Sea Island project, we concur with the construction of this develop—
ment.
We have signed the reproducable copy of the Preliminary Grading and Offsite
Drainage Plan for Tentative Tract No. 9676 with the understanding that con—
struction of erosion control structures will be accomplished under ]irovisions
of work measure 6 in your April 27 letter.
I wish to thank you and your staff for your interest and cooperative spirit
in developing work measures that will aid in protecting Upper Newport Bay
from adverse water pollutants.
Sincerely,
A
Fred A. Worthley Jr.
Regional Manager
Region 5
E�NI%If b
_ Ic aill_Devek rnenL(y.
hpril 27, 1979
Mr. Jack L. Spruill
SLate of California
Department of Fish and Game
Region 5
350 Golden Shore
Long Beach, California 90802
Re: Sea Island, Newport Beach
Dear Jack:
With reference to the meeting of April 18, 1979, with Ted Vande
Sande and yourself, this is to confirm that the following work
will be incorporated in the project:
1. Minimize the surface area to be disturbed at any one
time - possible staged construction.
2. Provide for capture on graded pads of runoff of 20-minute
duration for Q20.
3. Provide sediment basins at culverts under Jamboree Road.
These basins to have a hydraulic capacil.y of QSo, and a
storage capaci Ly to trap 90% of sediment from Q20 using
the Uniform Soil 1,ass Equation.
A. Install landscape and Irrigation systems Lo be effective
by October 15. The landscape plan will also consider some
use of na Live vegeLation in the project.
5. Modify proposed grcaee-spolmenl traps to work primarily
as sediment traps during cons Lruc Llon phase.
6- Construct crouton control structure:: to the swain nnrth
Of the tennis club. These st.ructurps would act an check
dials and will be gabions, sheet pile Or simildr.
7. Our final laudscapiag plan will incorpw-nle a substitute
area Lhal will replace the exIs Ling st.ru:ue bed area bolow the
golf course Pond. '
The above items will be incorporated into the final grddfnq plans
in addition to those items previously ouLlinvd L, our ]eptar of
April 2, 1979 (a copy is attach(,d).
ZZ
�o,J(on•r.1�,r.J.`.,`�n�,n,ralird,G.('J,I,�n;nid.,)44-,
�t
(
Mr. Jack L. Spruill
State of California
Be: ^ea Island, Newport Beach
i
i
•
1 ,
April 27, 1979 �i•.
Page 2 t
In addition Lo the plans, a notification of stream bed al- f•
teration under Section 1603 will be submitted. It is our under- :1
standing that you will coordinate the review and approval of this
notification with the local Game Warden.
if these conditions meet with your approval, would you please so I
indicate by signing Lhe reproducible copy of the grade plan at '
your earliest convenience, t '.
Should you desire any additional information, please call me at i
(714) 640-61100. i
JFS:,j jb
cc: Councilman Williams
Cd Krishar, Van Dell 6 ASSOCS.
Enclosure:
Very truly yours,•
,
If JJ,:e, '
?]in F. Shoemaker
Vice President
NO
- ------ •- • --
�•(r. ain-DevelSpnlew-ex
• April 2, 1979
Fir. Jack L. Spruill
State of California
Dept, of Pish 1. Game/Region 5
350 Golden Shore
Long Beach, Calif. 90802
Its: Sea Island, Newport Beach
Dear Jack:
As we agreed in our meeting on March 19, 1979, we have prepared
Lite attached grading and off -site drainage plan. Basically,
Elie plan incorporates the improvements and conditions we dis-
cussed, such as diverting as much of the'drainage to the north
so it flows into the bay through the marsh area. lie have Is -
signed a series of check dams in the ditch area north of the
John Wayne Tennis Club to slow down and spread out the storm
water during peak flows. We have also designed a rip rap
structure at the 40• outfall to prevent further erosion in
that area. Additional items Lhat are incorporated into the
project design are as follows;
1) A series of prefabricated concrete sand and grease
traps will be installed in the drainage system to
intercept Elie street and parking area debris.
2) Two car wash -areas will be lustellcd•Lhnt will drain
directly into the sanitary sewer syul.em and therufore
will not: enter the bay.
3) A plan for the proper mainLeuance of Lite sand and
grease interceptors and a streuL ::weeping program
will be incorporated into the C.C_a it. is of the
Homeowners' Association.
4) An ou-site erosion control plan will lie incorpor.11"
into Lite grading operation during Lite con::LrucLion
j Period Lhat will include desil Ling basins, Baal;
VIM Plan Ling and the necessary berms^ and erosion control
devices as required by Lite City of Newport Resell
�+ Revised Grading Ordinance_
lll(l,nr,. l YLll�it"11 (a,1 � /
IJ .l \. •\..I 'n!1(11. /lit(IIIt uht
1
fir. Jack I.. Spruill -2-
1
1
April 2, 1979 f'
f•
f
771e Irvine Company ties consented to the off -site drainage de-
vices end have indicated their approval by signing tilt attached
plan. The plan has also been reviewed and opproved by the
Landscape Architect, the Peridian Group.
If the plan meets with your approval, please sign the reproduc-
ible copy and keep the blue line•copice for your file,.
NuoY4ra
W^'"'
Ja
• JPS:jc
cc: Councilman ililliams
C. K. Greer
Van Dell a Associates
Enc. -
s
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
631 Howard Street, Son Francisco 94105—(415) 543-5555
STAFF RECOMAIFSIDATION
Anneal No. 201-79
(Mclain Development)
DECISION OF Hearing Opened: 7/16/79
REGIONAL
COMlQISSION: Permit granted by South Coast Regional Commission
PVMIT
APPLICANTS: McTTain Development Company; The Irvine Company
DMIOPM TT
LOCATION: 1000-1100 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, Orange County (Mddbit 1)
DEPELOPMIIQT
DESCPZPTION: Construction of 132—init condominium development (Mihibit 2)
AYPFLLWTS: Dorothy McAleavey (legal Aid Foundation of long Beach), Legal ?id
Society of Orange County, San Pedro Planning Alliance
PUBLIC HEA DG' Opened July 16, 1979, in Los Angeles
STAFF RECCb3MDATION:
I. Anproval *,r_th Conditions
.The Commission hereby grants, subject to the conditions below, a permit for the
proposed development on the grounds that, as conditioned, the development will be in
conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976? will
not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over yhe area to
prepare a local Coastal Program in condormity *'rith the provisions of Chanter 3 of -the
_Coastal Act, and will not have any significant adverse impacts• on, the ewrironment ,,rithin
the meaning of the California ohvirrormer_tal Quality Act.
II. Conditions
The permit is subject to the follouaing conditions:
1. Housing De cation.
a. Prior to issuance of permit, the applicant sh. i.l record an offer to dedicate
to the Housing Authority of Orange County sufficient land zoned to allow construction Of
30 housing units located 4'thin the coastal zone within 5 miles of the project site
The offer of dedication shall run with the land,.binding successors
and assigns, shall be recorded free of a?1 prior liens and encumbrances except talc 1;'ens,
and shall be issued by title insurance acceptable•to the Executive- rector. Prior to
recordation, the applicant shall submit the documents conveying the offer of decL.cat:.on-
to the Execnti-re Director for As review and approval. The approved offer shall be r:
corded and evidence thereof siibui,ted to the Executly& Director. !'_Try d-.vision of land
necessary to accomplish this action is also hereby approved by this Commission;
— AND --
\\ s/1�-151/79
b. in addition to the above dedication of land, prior to the issuance of a per-
mit the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Commission which shall provide
that either 10 of the units within the project, of 10 units off -site acceptable to the
Executive Director (the ten units proposed by the applicant at 900 Cagney lane, Newport
Beach, -being hereby found acceptable), shall be offered for sale to persons who qualify
as low-income persons ht prices which are affordable to low-income persons; a unit shall
be considered affordable if the sales price does not exceed 2.5 times the income of the
low-income target range for which the unit is intended. The ten units shall be priced
in a range which is affordable to persons earning from 60 - 0 of the median income which
is hereby determined, for purposes of this permit to be $19,500 per year, as follows:
i
3 units priced for persons earning less than 600 of the median income
3 units priced for persons earning less than 700 of the median income
4 units priced for persons earning less than 806 of the median income
The units shall be subject to controls on resale to assure continued affordability as
provided in the Commission's Statewide Interpretive Guidelines. Until the units off -site
are so offered for sale, ten units wiihin the project shall be retained to satisfy this
condition, and shall be sold subject to the terms of this condition unless the units
off -site are provided within three years of the issuance of this permit.
In order to assure compliance with the terms of this condition, the agreement shall
be recorded prior to the issuance of this permit on the deed f the
esproject
site sors in interest,
a
covenant to run with the land, binding er
with no prior liens other than tax liens, for a period of 30 years from the date of
issuance of this permit. As an alternative to recordation of this deed restriction,
the applicant may enter into such other binding, enforceable agreements, 'subject to the
written agreement of the Executive Director, as will assure the full Performance: of the
terms of this condition.
c. If, based on evidence submitted by the applicants, the Executive Direetdr
determines that the applicants do not own any land which would fulfill the specifications
of Section a of this condition and that there is no vacant land available which would
meet the specifications of Section a, then the applicants shall, instead, provide twice
the number of units for a total of b to be sold as described in Section b of this
condition, with the number of units in each range as follows:
4 units priced for persons_earning..less than 60o.of'the median income
4 units priced for persons earning less then 700,* of the median income
4 units priced for persons earning less tahn 800 of the median income
4 units priced for persons earning lass than 901%o of the median income
4 units priced for persons earning less than 10CF/Io of the median income
2. iinoff. Prior to issuance of permit, the applicant shall submit to the
'Executive Director of the Commission for his review and approval a runoff control plan
showing the storage of runoff on site and off site. The runoff control plan shall dem-
onstrate that peak runoff from the site will not increase after construction and shall
be in conformance :•r_th the recommendations of the Department of Fish and Game, as shown
in Exhibit 5. The runoff control plan shall be accompanied by an ezWineer's certification
r.�ng
that the final wodrawings are in substantial conformance with the plans acproVed
by the Executive Director. 911 development shall be in strict conformance with those
plans.
h
3-
nI, Findings and Declarations
The Commission finds and declares as follows:
1. Project Description. The applicant proposes to construct a 132-unit condominium
project on a vacant, 25.1-acre arcel at 1000-1100 Jamboree Road, in the City of.Newport
Beach, Orange County (Exhibit 1�. The project, known as the Sea Island Townhomes�.would
include 528 parking spaces, a recreation center, swimming pool, two jacuzzis, two tennis
courts, and a community carwash. Each condominium unit would have two bedrooms, and
the units would range in size between 1900 and 2700 sq. ft. The project density would
be 5.3 du/ac and would be consistent with the existing General Plan which allows a
density of up to 8 du/ac. Current zoning is "PC" (Planned Community). The project in-
cludes the following dedications of land to the City: a dedication paralleling Jamboree
Road to. allow for the widening of Jamboree Road, as well as a pedestrian bike trail;
a dedication along the southwestern boundary of the sitetto allow the extension of Back -
bay Drive; and dedication of a 6.5-acre parcel located across Newport Bay to the north
(Exhibit 7) which was requi.red:'by the City for park purposes.
The project site is surrounded by the Newporter Tan and the John Wayne Tennis Club
to the northwest, with Newport Bay located further northwest, the Irvine Coast Country
Club golf course to the east, with the Newport Center located further east, and vacant
land and Pacific Coast Highway to the south.
The applicant is leasing the land from the Irvine Company; in accordance with the
Commission's regulations, Irvine Company is a co -applicant for this permit. .
2. Project History. The applicant, originally applied to the City. for a 225-unit
apartment project in 1977• The applicant later decided it wanted to build condominiums,
so it•appUed to the City for an amendment. However, at this time the City reduced the
project to the present, 132-unit project. The City found that with the reduced density,
the project ". . .is consistent with the intent of existing zoning. . ." and that the
project ". .would be excepted meaning that it conforms to] the new traffic ordinance
based on evidence submitted by Lthe applicant] on the traffic impact." The Regional
-Commission approved the project for 132 units with no conditions.
3.yisitorSerrnQ Facilities. The project site is one of the few remaining large
vacant parcels within the coastal zone in Newport Beach; the other lard vacant parcels
are the Castaways site, the Weet Bay site, the Newporter North site, and 2 large parcels
at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. The Work Program portion
of the City's LCP, which the Commission has adopted, provides that the City will "In-
ventory and rank parcels with recreational and visitor -serving facilities potential" and
that the City will coordinate with the Department of Fish and Game ". . in order to
evaluate vacant parcels around Upper Newport Bay for possible Recreation/visitor-serving
uses." Thus, the development for residential use of the project site will eliminate of
the few options for providing visitor -serving or other priority uses in the LCP process.
However,'the City has sent a letter to the Regional Commission indicating that it
considers the site "committed for development" and does not intend to plan for visitor -
serving or other priority use on the site. Furthermore, the project site alone among
the remaining large vacant parcels is more appropriate for residential development,
since it would be a logical residential use to augment the adjacent Newport Center
commercial office area with minimal traffic impacts, end because the other large vacant
parcels would be more appropriate for some type of visitor -serving use for the following
reasons: the Work Program indicates that the Castaways site and the parcels at the inter. -
section of Jamboree and'PCH are contemplated by the General Plan to provide recreational
and marine -commercial uses, and the West Bay and Newporter North sites would be more
appropriate for visitor -serving uses since they are adjacent to Newport Bay. On the
basis of these circumstances, the Commission finds that foreseeable future demand for
visitor -searing facilities in Newport Beach can reasonably be expected to be accommodated
on other available sites and that development of the subject site for residential use would
be consistent with the intent of Coastal. Act Sections 30222 and 30223.
A. Water Quality. Section 30231 of the Coastal Act provides_
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters,
streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain op—
timum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of
human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored
through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste—
water discharges and entraasrment, [and] controlling runoff. . .
Runoff from the project site drains into Upper Newport Bay, an important wildlife habitat
area. Both the State Department of Fish and Came, which manages the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Preserve, and the City have expressed considerable concern that new development
with its increase in impervious surfaces could increase the rate of runoff, adding sediments
and urban pollutants into the bay and degrading water quality. The City :Imposed numerous
conditions on the development to protect the bay, including a requirement that the applicant
submit a grading and drainage plan acceptable to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The Department of Fish and Game did not indicate its approval of the project until the
applicant agreed to assure that the rate of runoff would not increase by, along 'with sediment
basins on site during and after construction, constructing weirs and riprap off site in,
the drainage swal.e across Jamboree Road, which would receive the majority of the runoff
from the site.
Thus,'the applicant has agreed to provide the following measures to protect the
water quality of the Bay: off —site weirs (check dams) and riprap to slow runoff; sediment
and grease traps on site during and after construction; diversion of ruucff designed so
that the flow will, be incrased toward the marsh area to the north of the John Wayne
Tennis Club, rather than to the scuth.were it would directly enter the bay; berms
around the building pads to slow runoff; monthly cleaning and maintenance of parking
and street areas; car wash areas which wil1 prevent detergents from entering the bay, and;
a landscaping maintenance, program.
The Commission finds that these :cork measures are sufficient to protect water uaLty
in Newport Bay. However, the applicant is not legally required to meet the concerns
and recommendations of the Department of Fish and Game.. Condition 2 is therefore neces—
sary to assure that the work measures the applicant has agreed to incorporate into the
project Obit 5), to meet the concerns of the Department of Fish and Game, wil-I be
provided. S4ithout this condition, the protection of the water quality of the bay would
be incomplete and the project would not comply with Section 30231 of the Coastal Act.
With this condition, the Commission concurs with the Department of Fish and Game that
the project ". . .will control project —induced sediments and urban pollutants and
thus provide necessa--r protection for Upper Newport Bay." The Commission therefore
finds that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with Section 30231 of the Coastal
Act, and that the site is developable forurban use as proposed.
-5-
5. Housina ODDOrttnli_ti.es. Since the Commission has found that residential use
of the subject site would be consistent with the land use priorities'of the Coastal
Act and could be developed in a manner protective of the natural resources of Newport
Bay, the Commission is required to apply to the project the standard of Coastal Act.
Section 30213 that "...housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income
shall be ...encouraged and, where feasible, provided."
As proposed, the project would provide housing opportunities only for upper -income
households: sales prices for the units have been projected at $278,500/unit by the applicant.
Given'the requirement of Section 30213., of the Coastal Act, such a project could be
approved by the Commission or1 if it found thatinclusion of housing opportunities for lower
income groups was incapable of being accomplished due to "economic, environmental? social,
or technological factors." The Regional Commission approval of the project included a
finding that "...the requirement for affordable housing of this project was inappropriate
for the site," bat the Regional Commission did not provide any evidence of the basis for this
conclusion. No documentation in the Regional Commission file supports the conclusion that
housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income could not feasibly be provided.
In order to ascertain the feasibility of including low and moderate income units, as part
of the project, the Commission's staff has prepared an assessment of the economic impact of
two inclusi.onary scenarios; these analyses are attached as Exhibits 3 and 4• From these
analyses, it appears that inclusion of low and moderate income units in the project would
be feasible from an economic standpoint alone either on the basis of the current project
density (Exhibit 3) or on the basis of a density increase (Exhibit 4)• Economic feasibility
then, is not an impediment to inclusion of low and moderate income units in this project..
However, in discussion with the applicant and after contacting officials of the City
of Newport teach and others knowledgeable in development processing in this locality,
the staff has determined that such on -site inclusion would probably not occur? for
reasons more clearly "social" than "economic". It does not appear that the City would
approve any revisions to the project. The City appears to have imposed an arti:fic1i y
low density on the project, in excess of the need to avoid traffic impacts (see traffic
discussion below).
- It is clear that housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income are sorely
needed in the City of Newport Peach. The City contains a substantial number of visitor -
serving commercial uses and other retail and service employment opportunities which generate
low and moderate income wage levels. The Regional "Fair Snare" Housing Allocation system
approved by the Southern California Association of Governments indicates a 1979 need for
6,551 units in Ptewoort Beach for low and moderate income households, including the highest
Fair Share (i.e., lowest current inclusion) of any City in Orange County. The City of Newport
Beach has made little apparent effort to "make adequate provision for housing opportunities
for all economic segments of the community", as required by State law mandating Housing
Elements of local General Plans, and has foregone acceptance of $57.7,000 in 1979 Community
Development Block Grant monies which could have been utili.zed.for housing programs. The
City of Newport Beach, a community of 60,000, contains, no publicly assisted housi.-ig, in
contrast even to the other communities of Orange County. Thus, given the clear and
substantial need for low and moderate income units in the City of Newport Beach, the Commissic
would require significant off -site provision of affordable units in any lard residential pro-
ject within the Coastal Zone. While such an inclusionary goal should be subject to a test of
feasibility, it appears that the strong demand for market -rate units in this area is suffi-
cient to assure economic feasibility even with this rate of inclusion.
Thus based on past Commission presedents, the Commission would normally require
the applicant to provide 25 0 :to 35 0 of the units onsite as low and moderate income housing?
0 -6
with the possibility of a density bonus, if feasible, or•an offsite dedication of land
zoned for twice that number of units. However in the subject permit, several factors limit
the feasibility of providing this number of units, either offsite pr onsite. The City
Planning Dept. states that the City would not approve either and increased density on
the site, or even a redesigned project with the same number of units but with some units
redesigned to provide low and moderate income housing. Thus it appears that it would not
be feasible for the applicant to provide the units onsite. Regarding a dedication of land
offsite, the applicant states that no land within the coastal zone is available for purchase
either within the City of Newport Beach or within several miles in either direction of the
site. In spite of the fact that the Irvine Co. is one of the applicants, the developer,
McLain Development, states that the Irvine Co. will not agree toprovide any land, even
though the Irvine Co. owns most of the vacant land in the project area. Thus, an offsite
alternative appears severely Und ed. The conditions require the applicant to satisfy the
Executive Director that this alternative is completely infeasible before the applicant can
implement the remaining alternative, which would be for the applicant to purchase units
already constructed or under construction, to be sold with resale controls as low and
moderate income housing.
The applicant states it is willing to meet this alternative by purchasing 20 units
in the Villa Balboa complex, a condominium development now under construction in Newport
Beach but outside the coastal zone (Exhibit 9)• The.Commission finds that since this
complex is directly adjacent to the coastal zone (it is bordered on two sides by the
coastal zone) and the units would provide scenic coastal views, that the units in this
complex would provide substantial coastal amenities and would be an acceptable location for
low and moderate income housing to meet Coastal Act policies. The Commission further finds -
that 20 units -aced be a sufficient amount, even though it is less that the 25% to 35o
normally required to be provided in r_ed housing projects, because of the unique constraints
imposed on the project by environmental factors which limit the economic feasibility of
providing dousing. Due Itue. to tra.fi:c.constraints, the -City will not consider a
redesigned project or a density bonus. The project's proximity to Newport Bay results in
the need for expensive environmental protection measures to protect water quality, for
which the applicant will have to spend at least $400,000. Furthermore the applicant .,rill
have to spend over $l,AO0,000 to meet other City requirements for environmental protection.
These constraints and costs substantially reduce the feasibility of providing new low
cost units in conjunction with this project. If the apolicant can prove that no vacant
land is available in the coastal zone within 5 miles of the project site, the alterrAtivs
of 20 off -site units in this case is sufficient to meet the need for low and moderate
-income housing required by Section 30213 while retaining the feasibility of the project.
Since this alternative would result in the provision of housing opportunities for peroon:
of low and moderate income, and since other more appropriate alternatives are infeasible,
the Commission finds that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with Section 30213
of the Coastal Act.
-7-
6. Traffic. Traffic congestion is aseris problem in Newport - hours withon many
ds
coastal access roads and intersections severelycongested during p
and holidays. Section 30254 of the Coastal Act provides:
Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate
only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal —dependent
use, essential public services, and basic industries vital to the econo—
mic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial
recreation, and visitor —serving land uses shall not be precluded'by other
development.
The proposed project is located near the critical intersection of Pacific Coast Highway
and Jamboree Road. The City has adopted a traffic ordinance which states that new de—
velopments shall not increase traffic at specified intersections by more than 1%. The
City found that the project at 132 units complied with this traffic ordinance, based on
evidence submitted by the applicant. This evidence, which is contained in the project's
EIZ, states that at peak evening periods the'Jamboree/PCH intersection is at 77% of cap—
acity (ICU of 0.77) and that the project *mill increase traffic at this intersection by
0.2%.
When asked by the staff to respond to the applicant's information, the ci.ty's traffic
department (Public Works Department) stated: (1) that the latest traffic counts indicate
that the Jamboree/PCH intersection is at 83% of capacity during peak hours (ICU of .83);
(2) that traffic during weekend and holiday peak hours is probably "slightly'less" than
during weekend and holiday peak hours; (3) that the applicant' r. trip generation rate of
6.5 trips/day/unit is probably too low and that 10-12 trips/day/unit would.be a more
appropriate rate; and (4) that, as' had been estimated by the appllcant;..most.of the trips
generated by the project would, be to the-north.and would thus not increase traffic at the
Jamboree/PCH intersection.. Thus, based on the City's input, the staff estimates that the
project will increase traffic at this intersection by no more than 0.5%• furthermore,
the City states that the widening of Pacific Coast Highway across Dover Bridge to the east,
currently the strongest impediment to smooth traffic flow in the area, may serve to
decrease traffic congestion at the Jamboree/PCH intersection, perhaps by more than 10%.
-The Dover Bridge project has received Coastal Commission approval, and construction is
expected to begin in June 1980.
In assessing the cumulative impact on traffic, the City Public Works Department
states that given the low density of the project as presently proposed, the cumulative
impact of residential buildout of the vacant land in the area would not significantly
increase existing traffic levels. There are approximately 140 acres of vacant land
in the project area.
If these lands were to be developed residentially at the density of the project,
the Commission finds that the total traffic increase at the major intersections in
the area would not be significant. The Commission therefore finds that the project,
both individually and cumul.ati7e177 would not significantly increase traffic congestion
beyond axisting levels nor would it preclude the allocation of traffic capacity to pri—
ority development and is consistent with Section 30254 of the Coastal Act.
0
0
-8-
In evaluating the feasibility of the density bonus acenario presented in Exhibit 4,
the staff analyzed the individual and cumulative traffic impacts which might be associated
with such a density on this and other residential project in the area. Such potential
traffic impacts were sited as one possible basin for an expected City of Newport Beach
denial of any proposed density increase. The addition of 33 units to the project and
the proportional density increase which that would engender would not appear to have
any significant effect upon traffic in the area. On the basis of the applicant's
traffic study, an additional 33 units would mean a total traffic increase at the Jamboree/
PCH intersection of 0.25% rather than 0.2 in the current project. Using the estimates of
City staff, the difference would be a 0.63 o increase rather than 0.5%. in either case,
the degree of impact would not be significant as it would not exceed the City's standard
of 1.0�. In fact, the cumulative impact, if the vacant lands in the project area were
developed at the density of the project, even if given a 25% density bdnus, would still
not be significant. The staff estimates that at this buildout at this density would re-
sult in a traffic level at the JamboreeACH intersection of less than 88% (or better than
level of Ser^rLce "D"), even without the lover Bridge improvements, and the traffic level
at other intersections in the project area (Jamboree/Santa Barbara Drive and Jamboree/
San Joaquin Hills Road) would be far less. The Commission therefore encourages the City
to take this information into consideration in analyzing the possibility of using a den-
sity bonus or similar tools to provide housing for persons of low and moderate income
in fature new development housing projects.
7. local Coastal Program Impact. The issues raised by this appeal coincide with the
major issues identified in the City's Work Program: public access -and traffic, recreation,
and visitor-seriing facilities, low- and moderate -income housing, and protection of wild-
life habitat. The City's LCP Wor$ Program provides that the Housing component would in-
clude the following:
investigate and inventory possible programs and techniques for
maintenance and rehabilitation of low- and moderate -cost housing,
[and] inventory. . .possible sites for new moderate housing con-
struction, and. . .evaluate and rank. . .these sites.
The State Department of Housing and Community Development, in its 5/22/78 response to
the City's LCP Issue Identification stated:
Kanyparcels potentially available for ho ting in Newport Beach
coastal zone are either in public ownership or part of large, long-
term private holdings. The city is therefore presented with a
greater range of opportunities than most coastal localities for
obtaining housing sites at substantially below market rates. These
sites and the mechanisms for making them available should certainly
be explored as part of the LCP Work Program.
The appellants in this case have indicated that the project site should be considered as
a parcel available at least in part for a low-income housing site and that approval of
development there at this time would prejudice preparation of the LCP. However, due to
the unique environmental and institutional constraints associated with development of
the property and the cost of appropriate mitigating techniques , the Commission finds that
low-income housing on the site could not be reasonably expected to be feasible. Commit-
ment of the site to high -income residential use would not therefore prejudice preparation
of the LCP, if, as conditioned, the project would provide a significant but reasonable
off -site housing requirement. As conditioned, the project should provide a valuable
precedent for other projects in this area and should provide zji.dance to the City of
Newport Beach's LCP as to the Commission's intent to Sully implement the provisions of
-9—
Section 3021.3 of the Coastal Act.
As conditioned to provide housing and since other aspects of the project are con—
sistent with Coastal Act policies as described above, the Commission finds that approval
of the project would not prejudice the ability of the City of Newport Beach to prepare an
LCP consistent with the policies Chapter 3 and would therefore be consistent with
Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act.
I an`•-•_ - ...,y..o __ '— _17 •- _
SCi PA0£ 13
.. L.. V. Sf \w .. i�G'_ ♦ /•r �-- iia � h/�J���f_ la �. l/'y. 4, -:25..� •r .`/_ %. •A_aY T,Y.•'. \i • \ i..
�r„� ^��C\Ya`O , �,i/ Y•t 4I ; y+. n
CIA aI f,T YI,{�1`V�!}r~ni
!lE'NPORT BEACH •' : ,�,'°" + +
�4�,^.y a /•t. �" at .% ' - :?.?,. + r...•..
]} .Ir n�✓„M..,r'OKi ,:-�V, ...t:..y� �� \• la• v.\na',,.°��,
'�, ice;. el: .l• `y==: , '',,;••'' �.lr;;•�"+;
M�•:;;::.__ •fie ., ..". 4�/ �/.:
• •��=Y�I. �fll i��l.ls ��1 j.�`i l' '�.`y✓` •� aTi a.�a' /"9�r.,, a.
x Santa 1
LOS ANG
W,
annira Re4m
neaunaoPains Vecdn el, cesn c• - -
•* Aren I au •ti
Esuiia �: t/wn 31
6a:tJ `�_ngeA; ti::
.•.-�,"##•--s_a� , amnns� O Deiiean ir.
San pa',�On� ./ ).°i+LSanta•.,^a rnmf �
•Beach
Sanset aeacn'�, �, 1
Hundngton:eaG.1`iT •,,'•Iu')d „L.a_ a ri11f
To r A,ST]I
Corona Oat Mu •il.a{ :snrm . s .
•'V:quna aeecn� c� Vri
'i An.. Pomta "�./ -
''}'i' a' • "�'Caontnno aeacn�San ma^ A •
°Avalon ASan C;:mant..a>> Cv+i Ll'
:.n C.w*nnSa 3,w,i ,.a
• Sn analrP L I 'el 1 9
^y may,- w �y�,,�� '•"',%. .•,.
' z�:M aJr
WR
lS and
landscape plan
mclain development co.
._ ..._ - "- C� Heir a..
Project Summary - - 20% inclusion
106 market -rate units
26 Below Market -Rate units
COSTS
Site Prep. _ $121,578/unit - $75,150/unit - $46,428/unit x 132 $ 6,128,496
Other (financing, fees, overhead, landscaping, marketing, etc.)
$34,000,957 - (Site Prep. + Land + Construction of Market Rate Units) _
$34,000,957 - ($6,128,496 + 49,601,940 + $14,089,680) _ $ 4,180,841
Construction (Market) - 106 units La 2373 sq.ft. avg x $45/sq.ft. _ $ 11,314,440
Construction (BMR) - 26 units/28,200 sq.ft. total x $35/sq.ft. . $ 987,000
Redesign (arch. + engr. fees, overhead) W $ 300,000
Land (37% total sales price - $4,000,000) _ $ 8,619,090
(assumes market -rate sales price of $310,500/unit)
COSTS TOTAL $ 31.529,867_
RnVcNUnS
Market -rate Sales (106 units x $310,500)
BMR Sales
_ $ 32,913,000
_ $ 1,192,650
Rt,VnNUzS TOTAL
= S
34,105,650
XLT
= $
2,5222783
Impact on Market -rate Units
Original Price Estimate = $278,500/unit = $117/sq.ft
Price with Inclusion - $310,500/unit - $131/sq.ft.
Price Increase - $32,000/unit = 11.5%
Impact on Profitability
Original Return = $2,761,043 on $34,000,957 = 8.1%
Return with Inclusion = $2,522,783 on $31,529,867 = 8.0%
3
Project Summary - - 257 inclusion with Density Increasd
132 market -rate units
33 Below Market -Rate units
COSTS
Site Prep. (Original + Revised) = ($46,428/unit x 132) + 07500 x 33) _ $ 6,375,996
Other (Original + Revised - - financing, fees, ovtrhead, marketing, etc.) _
($491802481) + ($200,000 + $85,000 + $40,000) _ $ 41505,841
(arch.)engr.) (finan.) (misc.)
Construction (Market) = 132 units @ 2372sq.ft. avg. x $45/sq.ft. _ $ 14,089,680
Construction (BMW _ (16 units @ 950 sq.ft. x $35/sq.ft.) +
(i7 units @ 1200 sq.ft. x $35/sq.ft.) = 35,600 sq.ft.tot. x $35/sq.ft. _
$ 1,2461000
Land (37% total sales price - $4,000,000) _ $ 10,7491408
(assumes market -rate sales price of $290,000/unit)
REVENUES
Market -rate Sales
BMR Sales
Impact on Market -rate Units
Original Price Estimate = $278,500/unit = $117/sq.ft.
Price with Inclusion = $290,000/unit = $123/sq.ft.
Price Increase = $12,000/unit = 4.3%
Fact on Profitability
Original Return - $2,761,043 on $34,000,957 = 8.1%
Return with Inclusion - $2,981,475 on $37,016,925 = 8.17.
COSTS TOTAL = $ 37,016,925•
$ 381280,000
$ '1,718,400
REVENUES TOTAL = $ 39,998,400
NET = $ 2,981,475
1
STATE Or
AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH
350. Olden Shore
Long Beach, CA 90602
(213) 59a-5113
May 117 1979
GAME
John F. Shoemaker, vice President
McLain Development Company
1470 Jamboree Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear 24r. Shoemaker:
-- EDMUND G. BRQWN 1R.• C.yern
C-
_:r </p
^!
We have reviewed the work measures outlined -in your letter of Apra. 2 and
271 1979 and believe that they will control project induced sediments and
urban pollutants and thus provide necessary protection for Upper PTeemort
Bay.
To assure this increased effectiveness we have mutually 'greed that work
measure 2 in your letter of April 27,be amended to read as follows:-11Prov de
for capture on graded pads of. runoff of 60 minutes duration for Q'2011.
Since y6u have ccrfirmed that the subject work measures wjll be incorporated
into the Sea Islar-d project, we concur with the construction of this deve? p-
ment.
We have signed the reproducable copy of the Preliminary Grading and Offsita
Drainage ?!an for Tentative Tract No. 9676 with the understanding that con-
struction of erosion control stractures will be accomplished under provisions
of work measure 6 in your April 27 letter.
I wish to thank you and your staff for your interest and cooperative spizit
in developing work measures that wi-11 aid in protecting upper Nawoort 'Bay
from adve.—.e water pollutants. '
Sincerely,
Fred A. Wortbley Jr, f
Regional Manager
Region 5
�11- uinDevelymenLO
April 27. 1979
mr. Jack L. Spruill
Stato of Californin
oepartment of Fini, and Game
Region 5
• 350 Golduu shorn
Long Reach. California 90002
Be: sea Island, Newport Beach
Dear .lack:
With reference to the .seating of April 10, 1979, with Ted Vundc
Saadu and yourself, this Is to confirm that tlue following work
will he incorporated Lit Lite project,
1. 111ulnuize the oncfnce Area to he disturbed At any Oise
Limit - possible Staged construction.
2. Provide, for captura on graded pads of runoff of 20,minute
dUraLian for Q20.
3. Providn Sediment basins at culverts under Jamboree Road.
Theses basins to have a hydraulic. capaci Ly of 050, +uW a
alorage rapacity to trap 90t of sedimOilL from 020 using
the Uniform Soil less Filuatiou.
A. Install landneape and irrigation systems to be effective
by October 15. The lauslocape plann will also consider home
,use of native vege ition In the projaot.
... Hndify puuposed grnase-sediment traps to work ptlma,lly
.,s sediment traps riming construction p0aia�.
6. Cunstnset orosiar, control struutures to the swole no, lh
Of the Lennie club. There utructurrs would out an clock
dams and will ha gabiOiu, sheet pile n- aimilar.
1. Our final landscapiog pl.uu will incorpouato a snhstituLe
ofcn that Will rrplacn the CXistlug SL,cam brad area buloW Out
golf course Bond.
Tilt' alcove LLaaus will Wt Lncnrpw,rated into the final yr.aiing plans
Tin ohlitien to Union Items previously outlintvl In Out lul•Uu of
.m. April 2, 079 (a copy in attau•hud).
r `
�Z
sass /' /
*janrp)ilr. fin, It,'}w� ll/,wrY1Rtl<il, f ilin/Pi In. 11466a • (/1.-) nfr, min,
v
L
Fir. Jack t. Spruill April 27, 1979
state of California ' Page 2
Re: Sun Inland, Heliport aeaeh I
In addition to tun plans, a notification of stream bed al-
teratiun under Section 1603 U111 be submitted. it is our under- i
standing that you will coordinate the review and approval of this
notification with the local Came Warden.
if those condt Lions went with your approval, would you please so
Indicate by signing the reproducible copy of the grade plan at
your earliest convenience.
Should you desire any additional information, please call a1a at
(714) 640-6000.
JrS:gjb
cc: Councilman W1111Ams
Ml Kosher, Van bell c ASSOCS.
Enclosure:
very truly youraq
! r
she F. Shoemaker
Vito President
• l
i
,
s
Mr. Zinc): 1.. Spruill -2-
April 2, 1979
ClI��s1
April 2, 1979
i -
The Irvilne Company hats consented to the off -site drainage de-
•
vicou and ikave indicated their approval by signing Like attached
P1a11. The plait has also been reviewed and approved by the
• landscape Archi LLct, the Peridian Group.
If the plan mL•F.fa with your approval, please sign the reproduc-
ible
Mr. dock L. Spruill
copy and keep tile blue line copien for your files.
';Late Ain
Dept.
v truly n s�.
of Fish 6 C.une/lteglon 5
-y
ld n Sj,ore
350 Golden Shore
1,onj Dcach, Calit. 90002
'
�Ioyl
lie: SL•a I:.Lan[l, MLWPOrt OLaLh
' 71p1 it F. akcr
Dear Jack:
.1L•5: je U
As we agreed in our meeting on March 19, 1979, we have prepared
cc: councllman llilliasns '
C. R. Creer
Lhe a1.Laclted gradinq and oft-si Le drainage plan❑asically,
Lite plan incorpnrales Lite improvements
Van Dell 6 Associates
and condil.iouu we din:
'
Lussed, such as diverting as much of tile•alrainage. to the north
Dne. '
so it flows inLo Llw bay through Lite mdrl:h arc.[, lie have de-
signed it series of cbeck dagns in the dlLuh area north of the
-
.7ohn wayne 9'enuls Club to slow (101411 and sprend ouL the storm
water during paalk flows, lie have also deshill(A a rip rap
sLrueture at the 4n• onLfall to prevent further erosion in
Lhal area. Additional items Lbat are incorporated into Lhe
pvojeel: [le.^.l[jn are as follow:::
'
1) A aeries of prefabricated concrete sand and grease
Lrnps will be installed it, the drointi9c sysl'Iva Lu
inlercel)L Lite stTCL•t and parking m'ca debris.
2) •1%)o car wash arpau will ))a Ins Lall.0-111at will drain
-
'directly into Lite s.ulitary sawLr sY:aem and LhorcLore
will nut en Ler file bay.
3) A plan for Like Proper mlit,Louance of Ibc laud and
gretiLll In LLCeeplotr and it slreel. mn-uptng prugra[m
will bL inenrpora Loll !')to Lite C.C.S h.'s (OL Lite
11O)I1t'ownersO Ars0viaLIOu.
4) An on -site etosiun control plaul will bu inettlpuraled
inLO the grading opera Lion dining Lite cun::Lrutaltn
.
.
•i+i
t.rind LiktLL will include desil Liuq basins, b,ud:
planLing and 'Lite ee•ccuenty bLrm:. and cn u:;ion euutrul
device:. b
.
'r!
I.1ofuired 1he
I Y C7ly el' Ih•Iq+el L IlLaeh
♦w
havi said Cradinry pr.li nanuu.
a.!f[r rjn,nta)rr. ')ad.r '.i��i�unli
1 '
� 1
__�lY)ILRiIl' tYi Y4�,C��}l:�M1�f/ItMfHflY(s)1'!M •M1+-YlariY1.il rya i�IQIY`tN1 YC�L�]MLY`i�Llla••�ii �liLt,'�+ltitm+LC:1[`t.:).[Y�aY.-4�+rz�a0a a�.!Y �\ vf.a.r.waerruremt.a+v ��pL�ce�[fnlLlt�G�=
i .rttitFs.
r
OWN
•
• r.L.
exhibit A `
lYµwlC ,• i'1 `�
WES
"'AY�
E;..;}'?::i•7 : �71:•';•.;"pie {�*•: t e�1� ��+�' Ytt"�t�.'t
,Kn,J:rr'l qn �•t ��\ � •.1 - -..: +6•tr..c'�tt f••k i. �
��ti?.i���•• rtY W.y ti�T.(rzzf l jR •l.�+l. �r: '!(�;:1 "k�Y�+� r, u.i7;,�4 i' i•ar�t,
� ly d Yi �J.�;+ ti 3 ! .\ 1. i•� '.i :;•7., �, 55: �!M� �•'�,.
•4 �, FFf.. l : •f-: Y :. •(Yt�fY!(•t,u iiitt"
':75,s(.;� , ",,;, x , ` UPPER NEWP RT
! l4��&[; 71.�:. .�.. :"'-^ifr,•=-r,, n� 7. LFtls' '7 :T�+:-+, A�
t`h �,•ba 1'i{4� .J .� �r t•.1! Is.. i8 ll1'F:n 5.1 Yl Y r4•F.; ,... !1 f, t.t 1.
.�A q]� ty 2S ! f. J!'(•l l�r! ,.
Y•:�: Ah7.. !: i^1!: ..:!'�'•."ltu :•ilk r7�.:,l.
%CY 1 CQAS j C e
WAV
bj acres
(vacant)
NEWPORTER QO�'
j\Aj CNNOSEA ISLAND
30 acresO r#
(vacant)✓��
iE
20 acres (vacant)
CITY OF,
NEWPORT BEACH
-
---
°+a,rc�e1* " ais.FlaU
CAWFORNU
.. 9peN.wnnBt,i '
June il, 1979 Baal Want
0 .
• ;1
Mr. Donald E. Wilson, PHI), Chairman - `—
South Coast Regional Commission 1
666 East Ocean Boulevard
Long Beadh, California 90801
• Rr. Proposed "Sea Island" Residential Development
(Coastal Permit P-7g-5232)
Clear Mr. Wilsoni
The Pr000sed "sea Island" residential development Is rife rid to
In the City and Cdaata) Commission adopted LCP Work Program as
follows:
"An additional medium -density residential project fnvoly-
Ing 225 units near Jamboree goad and Coast dighway has
received nearly all necessary aporovals from the City,"
in the City of 8ewoort Beach LCP Planning Program, ;his sita has
been considered committed for development since the issue Iden-
tification phase.
Whan the City Council approved the reduced project on January D,
1379, It was considered in I - :relationship to the Local C.aSt31
Program. The following finding was part of that approyal: -
"That the proposed -use of the site has not been iden-
"ified in the issue and Identification pnass of ;he
City ,3 Local Coastal Program IS xfng in conflict
with the policies and goals of the California Coastal
Act and will not preclude further development and
ultimate adoption by the City of a Local Coastal 'ro_
gram at rtquirtd under the Coastal Act."
In the approval of the project, the City Council considered'rest-
dential as an appropriate land ude,. given the goals of the Lot3i
Coastal Program, and also Considered that rtaiden Cial traffic
would have the least imoact, as compared to some alternate usa,
on the maJor intarsect".bn of JambOrlt and Coast Highway.
n
3ed1use of ;he Couneit's concern -with additional traffic in the
area, the project was reduced from 225 units to 132 units.
very truly yours,
DEPARTMEIiT Of CDMMUHITY DE9ELDPMEYT
r t'
t.• .�' r7 t r
t `t
'Y. 9tauAH, 0�.rEctor
R'7H/RPL/kk
0
t�T_;;�,a�3xm�zaia.:��:?ts?:�?'e�ti2f.\kar�\,1^.• —t%.
City of Newport Beach
CLasial Zono Boundary
lr \
sx,a�sa»r�,ruczr.:rru:s��,,• ,5acm.arJ ;. - •Y�. .
9
r _ !`vim x �•%' _ `;i's
�,.0(A}pan Ot I�ai�'SifL"�5i`1 t'(!j:�•. ��j. •��1^ \;`- - � `� "L:".�r�.
Unos to ba pruv;�cd
Zm-
s \ � ` •.. � :: � r.� •� - •� wis{� - ti ' .. •��-� ram• I i \..`.
iE.tt ,•.�..
�Y' t i iJy i`���1�l1 �•�\\L` �"C :r' 7 i.... �',�!• '��•r• _i �'i��. 'Lly',�, C
*-`'.-^?rw `\.�. •,�%�?n�tl�"'u` '�'.::.1,1.f� \:,..�['!. �':.;c�e" . {{i ",K� ,.' /(�;N�J'�.+_._'••;; Lfj ice.
c f �Y•9� _tli�.r��i_ v �/•N'-•. ..���'"+ ...1~�l�illlJl ���li�.�{'J:1�II �1�. /'..�SI ___. �
1
I
I
.. I
.o
�K.�f 4YAIt tI, yY s,D�WCE lW�NW�
4
AY OF NEWPORT BARCH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
AG A!G "* no Nam\
MINUTES
May 26, 1987
111- RESUBDIVISION NO. 843 - Approve a
\subdivision agreement guaranteeing
aojpletion of the public improvements
required with Resubdivision No. 843 (lot
1, BlbSk 433, Corona del Mar, located at
421 Goldg@rod Avenue on the
northwest ly corner of Goldenrod Avenue
and First A nue, in Corona del Mar);
and authorize he Mayor and City Clerk
to execute subj`6Rt agreement. (Report
from Public Works epartment)
12. USE PERMIT NO. 3160 ( ENDED) - Approve
A use permit agreement aranteeing
completion of the public provements
required with Use Permit No.
3160(Amended) [parcel 1 of Pa el Map
83-13, Resubdivision No. 467, 1 ated at
900 West Coast Highway, on the no herly
side of West Coast Highway, across e
street from`the easterly end of the
Balboa Bay Club]; and authorize the
Mayor and Cit�Clerk to execute subject
agreement. ( port from Public Works
13. TRACT 9676 - Ap rove an agreement for
nonstandard str et improvements for Sea
Vista Drive wit the Lusk Company and
the Island Lago n Homeowners Association
(a portion of blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's
Subdivision located at 1100 Jamboree
Road, on the easterly side of Jamboree
Road across from the Newporter Inn);
approve an agreement for Island Lagoon
Drive with the Island Lagoon Homeowners
Association; and authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute subject agreements
to be recorded with the Orange County
Recorder. (Report from Public Works
Department)
RESUBDIVISION 814 - Approve a
subdivision agreement guaranteeing
completion of the public improvements
equired with Resubdivision 814 (lots 21
an 22, block 331, Lancaster's Addition,
loc ed at 418 and 420 31st Street, on
the s therly side of 31st Street
between ilia Way and Newport Boulevard
in Canner Village); and authorize the
Mayor and ty Clerk to ,execute subject
agreement, kyeport from Public Works
Department)
Volume 41 - Page 205
Resub 843
(84)
Use Permit
3160
(88)
(84)
9676
814
COY OF NEWPORT BACH
� IA
COUNCIL MEME
1ti n
�G� `G 0�
A, , �P
MINUTES
May 26, 1987
THE TERRACES SIGN ON DEDICATED PARK
PROPERTY - Approve the request of The
Irvine Company to construct a
directional sign for "The Terraces" on
the dedicated park property adjacent to
he north wing of Oasis Senior Center
s bject to conditions in the staff
r ort. (Report from Parks, Beaches and
Re reation Department)
16. SPE61AL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.
87-1 7 - Uphold staffs recommendation
for a proval, subject to conditions
liste in the staff report, for use of
public beach and amplified sound for the
Chamber of Commerce, Parks, Beaches and
Recreati n Department for Irrelevant
Week at 5th Street Bay Beach, American
Legion Po t on Thursday, June 25, 1987.
(Report fr m Business License
17. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval:
BA-094, $10,0 0 - Transfer in Budget
Appropriations for development of a
public educat14 and public awareness
program in Wate Quality;
Marine -Services, Professional,
Technical, etc. pnd.
BA-095, $2,000 - T ansfer in Budget
Appropriations to p ovide for membership
in the Southern Cal ornia Group
Benefits Joint Powerk Agreement;
Nondepartmental-Publi ations and Dues
Fund. (Memorandum fr pt Personnel
Director)
G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE OQNSENT CALENDAR:
(a) Proposed Resolution o. 87-67
authorizing the City nager to
execute certain contr ets on behalf
of the City with a rep rt from the
City Attorney, was pre nted.
The City Attorney advise that the
subject resolution has b n revised
since the distribution of the
agenda packet, and that an
additional paragraph has b a added
authorizing the City Manage to
enter into contracts with pu lie
agencies or private entities or
law enforcement or other sery ces
provided the contract price do s
not exceed $30s000.00.
Volume 41 - Page 206
"The
Terraces"
Sign/Park
Property
(62)
Special Evnt
Apli#87-117
(65)
S Dues Fund
(25)
May 26, 1987
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. F-13
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: TRACT 9676
LOCATION: A portion of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's Subdivision located at
1100 Jamboree Road, on the easterly side of Jamboree Road across
from the Newporter Inn
DEVELOPER: Lusk Company
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve an Agreement for Non -Standard Street Improvements for
Sea Vista Drive with the Lusk Company and the Island Lagoon
Homeowner's Association.
2. Approve an Agreement for Non -Standard Street,Improvements for
Island Lagoon Drive with the Island Lagoon Homeowner's
Association.
3. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the
Agreements.
4. Authorize and direct the City Clerk to have the Agreement
recorded with the Orange County Recorder.
DISCUSSION:
Non -Standard Street Improvements have been constructed at Sea Vista
Drive and Island Lagoon Drive Entrance to Tract 9676.
These improvements include textured concrete. Security gates and a
guard structure, all located within private streets that contain City water,
sewer and storm improvements.
The Agreement allows construction of the Non -Standard street
improvements as approved by the Public Works Department and requires that the
Island Lagoon Homeowner's Association and the Lusk Company be responsible for
restoration of the Non -Standard Improvements in the event the City must remove
them to maintain City facilities.
Ann/Exhibit is attached for reference.
C�✓2'r���'st�x�wK (�G �`�
Benjamin
B. Nolan/
Public Works Director
DLH/bjm
Attachment
t
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DRAWN fAL- A• DATE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVED
o46RBEMENT ~
NOW SM. MAWSMENTS
MAGI 947G
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
R.E. NO. -
DRAWING NO. "Igl4glr
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
JOHN J. VAN HOUTEN, PE, Principal Co
DAVID L. WIELAND, Principal Engineer
ROBERT WOO, Associate Engineer
AT I N "HOOF, Associate Engineer
March 1, 1989
0
Pip o�cN'
EAST KATELLA AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805
(714) 635-9520 FAX (714) 939-0648
Project File 1668-86
THE LUSK COMPANY
P.O. Box C19560
Irvine, CA 92713-9560 1
Attention: Mr. Pilo Ochoa
Subject: Certification of Compliance, Building 1, Units 13,
15, 17, and 19, Sea Island
Gentlemen:
On February 28, 1989, noise measurements were obtained at inte-
rior and exterior locations within Building 1, Units 15 and 19.
The instruments used to obtain the data and the data listing are
provided in Appendix I. As a result of these measurements, it is
concluded that the interior and exterior spaces of units 15 and
19 within Building 1 comply with the City and State noise stand-
ards. That is, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL)
within the interior and exterior living space is 45 dB and 65 dB
or less, respectively.
Although not tested, it is also concluded that all remaining
units within Building 1 also comply with the City and State inte-
rior noise standards.
Summary of Test Results
The interior and exterior CNEL has been assessed based upon the
noise level measurements obtained at four locations within Build-
ing 1, Units 15 and 19. Also used in the assessment are the
results of a previous 24-hour measurement obtained at the Sea Is-
land site. (Appendix I provides the methodology used in our
assessment of the interior and exterior CNEL.) The following
provides a summary of the CNEL for the subject units:
Building Location CNEL. dB
Unit 15 Patio 64.5
Master Bedroom 44.5
Unit 19 Patio 63.0
Master Bedroom 44.0
THE LUSK COMPANY
PROJECT FILE 1668-86
Please note that we have inspected each unit to determine if
properly glazed window assemblies were installed. It was deter-
mined that the assemblies are in a true and tight fitting condi-
tion when closed.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact the under-
signed at 714/635-9520.
Very truly yours,
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
John J. Van Houten, P.E.
Consulting Engineer in Acoustics
JJVH/RW/rrp
C:\WS2000\REPORTS\MISC\16683-1
2
Robert Woo
Associate Engineer
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
r r
APPENDIX I
Methodology
Table Description
I-1 Instrument Listing
I-2 Complete Listing of 24-Hour Data Obtained on April 28-
29, 1987
I-3 Complete Listing of Data Obtained on February 28, 1989
METHODOLOGY
A 24-hour noise measurement was obtained on April 28-29, 1987 at
the balcony area of model plan 2A at Sea Island. The measure-
ments result indicates the following (refer to Table I-2):
CNEL = 67.5 dB
(CNEL - Leq)
Time Hourly Leq Difference
13:00 - 14:00 66.5
1.0
The noise measurement obtained on February 2, 1989 at the patio
area of Unit 15 and 19, Building 1, at Sea Island indicates an
hourly Leq of 63.5 and 63.0 dB(A), respectively, for the hour be-
tween 13:00 and 14:00. (Refer to Table I-3.) A similar measure-
ment made on April 28-29, 1987, indicates a difference between
the CNEL and hourly Leq of 1.0 for the hour of 13:00 to 14:00.
The CNEL at the exterior locations can be calculated as follows:
Patio, Unit 15, Building 1: 63.5 + 1.0 = 64.5 dB
Patio, Unit 19, Building 1: 63.0 + 1.0 = 64.0 dB
Noise measurements obtained at the interior space of the subject
units indicates a noise reduction from the exterior to the inte-
rior of about 20 dB for Unit 15 and about 19 dB for Unit 19.
(Refer to Table I-3.) Therefore, the interior CNEL can be calcu-
lated as follows:
Living Room, Unit 15: 64.5 - 20 = 44.5 dB
Living Room, Unit 19: 63.0 - 19 = 44.0 dB
Table I-1
Noise Measurement Equipment
The following items of equipment were used to obtain the noise
measurements:
1. A -Weighted Noise Level - Analysis
Portable Noise Monitor, BBN Type 614, Serial Number 773506
Larson -Davis Laboratories, LDL Type 700, SIN 70OB0624
Larson -Davis Laboratories, LDL Type 700, SIN 70OB0625
Larson -Davis Laboratories, LDL Type 700, SIN 70OB0626
2. Acoustical Calibration
Acoustical Calibrator, B & K Type 4230 (94 dB @ 1000 Hz)
Acoustical Calibrator, GR Type 1567, (114 dB @ 1000 Hz)
A • WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL
POSITION NO.
PROJECT: JOHN D. LUSK 6 SON
POSITION: MODEL PLAN 2A, BALCONY
SOURCE: TRAFFIC ON JAMBOREE
DATE: APR 28-29,'87 PEAK HOUR: 08:00-09:00
SOUND LEVELS: L90= 59.0 L50= 66.0 L1D= 69.0 Leq= 67.3 dB(A)
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL: 67.5 dB
Time
Sound
Level,
From To_
dB(A)
07:00-08:00
66.5
08:00-09:00
67.3
09:00-10:00
66.1
10:00-11:00
66.7
11:00-12:00
66.7
12:00-13:00
66.3
13:00-14:00
66.5
1 :00-15:00
66.5
1 :00-16:00
66.5
16:00-17:00
66.3
17:00-18:00
66.5
18:00-19:00
66.1
19:00-20:00
65.0
20:00-21:00
63.5
21:00-22:00
62.8
22:00-23:00
61.6
23:00-00:00
59.6
00:00-01:00
57.7
01:00-02:00
54.0
02:00-03:00
52.6
03:00-04:00
48.7
04:00-05:00
50.8
05:00-06:00
57.7
06:00-07:00
62.4
Shoot 1 of Z
10 66.0 1 46.0 65.5 1 46.5
50 63.0 1 42.5 61.0 42.0
90 60.0 40.0 52.0 37.0
* P = Patio
MB = Master Bedroom
Noise Survey
ROJECT: spa Tsiand
EASUREMENT POSITION: Units 15 & 19,
luilding 1
ATE: 2/28/89
IME: From 13:00 To 14:00
Source of noise: Traffic on
Jamboree
Distance to source: Varied
SUI height: 5'
BBN NOISE MONITOR, 614
Serial Number: 773506
B6K 4426 RMS DETECTOR
Serial Number: N/A
❑ Fast ❑ Maximum Level
❑ Impulse
❑ Slow ❑ Instant Level
Sample period (s):
Range (dB):
CALIBRATION
❑ B&K 4230 ❑ B&K 4220
Serial Number: N/A
ATMOSPHERIC CONDITION
Time observed:
Wind direction: blind vel:
Temp: Rel. humidity:
Data Record of
OPERATOR(S): Rw
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES Sheet — of —
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
1260 EAST NATELLA AVENUE, ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA 92805
)714) 635A520
JOHN J. VAN HOUTEN, PE, Director
W
DAVID L. WIELAND, Principal Engineer
MINE SANG LEE, Senior Engineer
ROBERT WOO, Associate Engineer
SGF ; ' h I
4
e�C�e�gO°�
February 14, 1989
b
THE LUSK COMPANY
�F?`
P.O. Box C19560
Irvine, CA 92713-9560
Attention: Mr. Pilo Ochoa
Subject: Certification of Compliance,
Sea Island
Gentlemen:
Project File 1668-86
Building 19, Plan "D"
On December 27, 1988, and February 2, 1989, noise measurements
were obtained at interior and exterior locations within Building
19, Units 1A and 1B. The instruments used to obtain the data and
the data listing are provided in Appendix I. As a result of
these measurements, it is concluded that the interior and ex-
terior spaces of units lA and 1B within Building 19 comply with
the City and State noise standards. That is, the community noise
equivalent level (CNEL) within the interior and exterior living
space is 45 dB and 65 dB or less, respectively.
Although not tested, it is also concluded that all remaining
units within Building 19 also comply with the City and State in-
terior noise standards.
Summary of Test Results
The interior and exterior CNEL has been assessed based upon the
noise level measurements obtained at four locations within Build-
ing 19, Units 1A and 1B. Also used in the assessment are the
results of a previous 24-hour measurement obtained at the Sea Is-
land site. (Appendix I provides the methodology used in our
assessment of the interior and exterior CNEL.) The following
provides a summary of the CNEL for the subject units:
Building Location CNEL, dB
Unit 1A Balcony 65
Living Room 44
Unit 1B Patio 63
Living Room 42
THE LUSK COMPANY
PROJECT FILE 1668-86
Please note that we have inspected each unit to determine if
properly glazed window assemblies were installed. It was deter-
mined that the assemblies are in a true and tight fitting condi-
tion when closed.
If wecan be of further assistance,
signed at 714/635-9520.
Very truly yours,
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & AS,SOCIATES, INC.
• ��"" � °•.,�^��
ohn J. an Houten, P.E.
Consult g Engineer in Acoustics
JJVH/RW/rrp
C:\WS2000\REPORTS\MISC\16682-14
E
please contact the under -
Robert Woo
Associate Engineer
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
APPENDIX I
Methodology
Table Description
I-1 Instrument Listing
I-2 Complete Listing of 24-Hour Data Obtained on April 28-
29, 1987
I-3 Complete Listing of Data Obtained on February 1, 1989
I-4 Complete Listing of Data Obtained on December 27, 1988
A 24-hour noise measurement was obtained on April 28-29, 1987 at
the balcony area of model plan 2A at Sea Island. The measure-
ments result indicates the following (refer to Table I-2):
CNEL = 67.5 dB
(CNEL - Leq)
Time Hourly Lea Difference
10:00 - 11:00 66.7 dB(A) 0.8
13:00 - 14:00 66.5 1.0
The noise measurement obtained on February 2, 1989 at the balcony
area of Unit 1A, Building 19, at Sea Island indicates an hourly
Leq of 64.0 dB(A) for the hour between 10:00 am and 11:00 am.
(Refer to Table I-3.) A similar measurement made on April 28-29,
1987, indicates a difference between the CNEL and hourly Leq of
0.8 for the hour of 10:00 am to 11:00 am. Therefore, it is es-
timated that the CNEL at the balcony area of Unit 1A is about 65
dB.
Noise measurements obtained on December 27, 1988 at the patio
areas of Unit 1B indicate an hourly Leq of 61.7 dB(A)'. (Refer to
Table I-4.) Similarly, the April 28-29 measurement for the hour
between 13:00 and 14:00 indicates a difference of 1.0 between the
CNEL and the hourly Leq. Therefore, it is estimated that the
CNEL at the patio area of Unit 1B is about 63 dB.
Noise measurements obtained at the interior space of the subject
units indicates a noise reduction from the exterior to the inte-
rior of about 21 dB for Unit 1A and about 21 dB at Unit 1B.
(Refer to Tables I-3 and I-4.) Therefore, the interior CNEL can
be calculated as follows:
Living Room, Unit 1A: 65-21 = 44 dB
Living Room, Unit 1B: 63-21 = 42 dB
Table I-1
Noise Measurement Equipment
The following items of equipment were used to obtain the noise
measurements:
1. A -Weighted Noise Level - Analysis
Precision Integrating Real -Time Analyzer, LDL Model 3100A
Precision Sound Level Monitor, B & K Type 2218, SIN 784286
Portable Noise Monitor, BBN Type 614, Serial Number 773506
Larson -Davis Laboratories, LDL Type 700, SIN 70OB0624
Larson -Davis Laboratories, LDL Type 700, SIN 70OB0625
Larson -Davis Laboratories, LDL Type 700, SIN 70OB0626
2. Acoustical Calibration
Acoustical Calibrator, B & K Type 4230 (94 dB @ 1000 Hz)
Acoustical Calibrator, GR Type 1567, (114 dB @ 1000 Hz)
A•WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL
PROJECT:
POSITION:
SOURCE:
DATE:
SOUND LEVELS:
POSITION NO.
JOHN D. LUSK & SON
MODEL PLAN 2A, BALCONY
TRAFFIC ON JAMBOREE
APR 28-29,'87 PEAK HOUR: 08:00-09:00
L90= 59.0 L50= 66.0 Lt0= 69.0 Leq= 67.3 dB(A)
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL: 67.5 dBl
Sound
Level,
F
dB(A)
66.5
67.3
09:00-10:00
66.1
10:00-11:00
66.7
11:00-12:00
66.7
12:00-13:00
66.3
13:00-14:00
66.5
14:00-15:00
66.5
15:00-16:00
66.5
16:00-17:00
66.3
17:00-18:00
66.5
18:00-19:00
66.1
19:00-20:00
65.0
20:00-21:00
63.5
21:00-22:00
62.8
22:00-23:00
61.6
23:00-00:00
59.6
00:00-01:00
57.7
01:00-02:00
54.6
02:00-g3:00
52.6,
03:00-04:00
48.7
04:00-05:00
50.8
05:00-06:00
57.7
06:00-07:00
62.4
sne.i 1., of
I-2
6O 1 61.5 41.5
Noise Survey
ROJECT: SEA ISLAND
EASUREHENT POSITION: Building 19
RTE: 2/1/89
IME: From 10:00 To 11:00
Source of noise: Traffic on
Jamboree
Distance to source:
SLH height: 5'
BBN NOISE MONITOR, 614
Serial Number: N/A
86K 4426 RMS DETECTOR
Serial Number:
❑ Fast ❑ Maximum Level
❑ Impulse
❑ Slow ❑ Instant Level
Sample period (s):
Range (dB):
CALIBRATION
❑ B&K 4230 ❑ B&K 4220
Serial Number:
`ATMOSPHERIC CONDITION
Time observed:
Wind direction: blind vel:_
Temp: Rel. humidity:
Data Record of
OPERATOR,(S): RW
LDL #700B0624
LDL U700B0625
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES I_3 Sheet — of —
Si
1/it.1 Exit 1 Noise Survey
34 13-14
fv
LN
LN
LN
LN
LN
1
f0
BO
90
99
Leq
61.7
40.4
MAX
unples
PROJECT: SEA ISLAND
MEASUREMENT POSITION: a tTL Txc ig
DATE: 12/27/88
TIME: From 13:00 To 14:00
Source of noise: Traffic on Jambore
aircraft operations at John Wayne A
Distance to source: Varies
SUI height: 5'
BBN NOISE MONITOR, 614
Serial Number: N/A
BEK 4426 RMS DETECTOR
Serial' Number: N/A
❑ Fast ❑ Maximum Level
❑ Impulse
❑ Slow ❑ Instant Level
Sample period (s):
Range (0):
CALIBRATION
❑ B&K 4230 ❑ B&K 4220
Serial Number•
ATMOSPHERIC CONDITION
Time observed:
Wind direction: blind vela_
Temp: Rel. humidity:
Data Record of
OPERATOR'(S): RW
rport
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES I-4 sheet — of —
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
1260 EAST EATELLA AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805
)714) 635A520
JOHN J. VAN HOUTEN, PE, Director
DAVID L. WIELAND, Frincipal Engineer
MIKE G LEE, or Engineer
S
Associate Engineer
�G
ROBERT�tWOO,
� '
Q`Po��d10,0
V
February 21, 1989
THE -LUSK COMPANY
P.O. Box C19560
Irvine, CA 92713-9560
Attention: Mr. Pilo Ochoa
Project File 1668-86
Subject: Certification of Compliance, All Units within Build-
ing 35
Reference: "Recommended Noise Barrier and Sound Transmission
Class (STC) for Glazing Assemblies at Sea Island," J.
J. Van Houten & Associates, dated April 1, 1987
Gentlemen:
On January 31, 1989, noise measurements were obtained at the ex-
terior balcony of Unit 3A, Building 35. The instruments used to
obtain the data and the data listings are provided in Appendix I.
As a result of these measurements, it is concluded that the ex-
terior balcony of Unit 3A, Building 35, complies with the City's
exterior noise standard. That is, the community noise equivalent
level (CNEL) at the exterior living space is 65 dB or less.
Although not tested, it is concluded that the exterior balcony
and patios of Units 1A, 1B, and 3B also comply with the City's
exterior noise standard. Furthermore, it is concluded that the
interior living spaces also comply with the City and State noise
standards.
Summary of Test Results
The exterior CNEL has been assessed based upon the noise level
measurement obtained at the exterior balcony of Unit 3A, Building
35. Also used in the assessment are the results of a previous
24-hour measurement obtained at the Sea Island site. (Appendix I
provides the methodology used in our assessment of the interior
and exterior CNEL.) The following provides a summary of the CNEL
for the subject units:
Unit Location CNEL, dB
3A Balcony 64
3A Living Room 44
THE LUSK COMPANY
PROJECT FILE 1668-86
If we can be of further assistance, please contact the under-
signed at 714/635-9520.
Very truly yours,
J J. VAN HOUTEN ASSO ATE/y�, INC.
J hn J. V Houten, P.E.
onsulti Engineer in Acoustics
JJVH/rrp
C:\WS2000\REPORTS\MISC\16682-21
2
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
METHODOLOGY
A 24-hour noise measurement was obtained on April 28-29, 1987 at
the balcony area of model plan 2A at Sea Island. The measurement
result indicates the following (refer to Table I-2):
CNEL = 67.5 dB
(CNEL - Leq)
Time Hourly Leq Difference
14:00 - 15:00 66.5 dB(A) 1.0
The noise measurement obtained on January 31, 1989 at the balcony
area of Unit 3A, Building 35, at Sea Island indicates an hourly
Leq of 64.3 dB(A) for the hour between 2:00 pm and 3:00 pm (Refer
to Table I-3). A similar measurement made on April 28-29, 1987,
indicates a difference between the CNEL and hourly Leq of 1.0 for
the hour of 2:00 pm and 3:00 pm. Therefore, it is estimated that
the CNEL at the balcony area of Unit 3A is about 64.3 dB.
Since normal building construction provides at least 20 dB of
noise reduction, the interior CNEL at Unit 3A is estimated to be
about 44.3 dB.
Methodology
Table
I-1
I-2
I-3
TABLE I-1
NOISE MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
The following items of equipment were used to obtain the noise
measurements:
1. A -Weighted Noise Level - Analysis
Portable Noise Monitor, BBN Type 614, Serial Number 773504
Precision Integrating Real Time Analyzer, LDL Model 3100A
2. Acoustic Calibration
Acoustic Calibrator, B & K Type 4230, (94 dB @ 1000 Hz)
Acoustic Calibrator, GR Type 1567, (114 dB @ 1000 Hz)
TABLE I-2. SUMMARY OF HOURLY LEQ AND CNEL OBTAINED ON APRIL
28-29, 1937.
PROJECT: JOHN D. LUSK & SON
POSITION: MODEL PLAN 2A, BALCONY
SOURCE: TRAFFIC ON JAMBOREE
DATE: APR 28-29,,87 PEAK HOUR: 08:00-09:00
SOUND LEVELS: L90= 59.0 L5o= 66.0 L10= 69.0 Leq= 67.3 dB(A)
Time
Sound
Level,
From To
dB(A)
07:00-08:00
66.5
08:00-09:00
67.3
09:00-10:00
66.1
10:00-11:00
66.7
11:00-12:00
66.7
12:00-13:00
66.3
13:00-14:00
66.5
14:00-15:00
66.5
15:00-16:00
66.5
16:00-17:00
66.3
17:00-18:00
66.5
18:00-19:00
66.1
19:00-20:00
65.0
20:00-21:00
63.5
21:00-22:00
62.8
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL: 67.5 dB;
22:00-23:00
61.6
23:00-00:00
59.6
00:00-01:00
57.7
01:00-02:00
54.0 _ ._._ _
02:00-03:00
52.6
03:00-04:00
48.7
04:00-05:00
50.8
05:00-06:00
57.7
06:00-07:00
62.4
. n J
TABLE I-3
Summary of Leq Obtained on January 31, 1988, Building 35
Time
14:00 -15:00
NOTES:
Unit
Exterior
3A
Balcony
Noise Reduction)
Unit 3A
Interior2
64.3
dB
20 dB
44.3 dB
1. Noise reduction provided by standard building construction.
2. Interior noise level estimated by subtracting 20 dB from the
exterior noise level of 64.3 dB.
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
JOHN J. VAN HOUTEN, PE, Director
DAVID L. WIELAND, Principal Engineer
MIKE SANG LEE, Senior Engineer
ROBERT WOO, Associate Engineer
August 2, 1988
THE LUSK COMPANY
P.O. Box C19560
Irvine, CA 92713-9560
Attention: Mr. Baker Guthrie
R E C E 1VED
1260 FEAST KATELLA AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 9ZSOS
AUG 0 9 A.M. 17141'
UO
Project File 1668-86
Subject: Certification of Compliance, Model Homes, Sea Island
Reference: "Recommended Noise Barrier and Sound Transmission
Class (STC) for Glazing Assemblies at Sea Island," J.
J. Van Houten & Associates, dated April 1, 1987
Gentlemen:
On July 21, 1988, noise measurements were obtained at interior
and exterior locations within model home Plans 2A and 2B. The
instruments used to obtain the data and the data listings' are
provided in Appendix I. As a result of these measurements it is
concluded that the interior spaces of model home Plans 2A and 2B
comply with the City and State noise standards. That is, the
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) within the interior
living space is 45 dB or less. In addition, it is concluded that
the balcony area of model home Plan 2A and the patio area of
model home Plan 2B comply with the City's exterior standard of 65
dB CNEL.
Although not tested, it is also concluded that all remaining
model homes also comply with the City and State noise standards.
Summary of Test Results
The interior and exterior CNEL has been assessed based upon the
noise level measurements obtained at four locations within model
home Plans 2A and 2B. Also used in the assessment are the
results of a previous 24-hour measurement obtained at the Sea Is-
land site. (Appendix I provides the methodology used in our
assessment of the interior and exterior CNEL ) The following
provides a summary of the CNEL for the subject units:
1
THE LUSK COMPANY
Unit Location
Model Home, Plan 2A Balcony
Living Room
Model Home, Plan 2B Patio
Living Room
PROJECT FILE 1668-86
CNEL
63 dB
38
62
40
Please note that we have inspected each unit to determine if
properly glazed window assemblies were installed. It was deter-
mined that the assemblies are in a true and tight fitting condi-
tion when closed.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact the under-
signed 1t 714/635-9520.
Very truly yours,
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCI TES, INC.
John J. yo Houten, P.E. Mike Lee
nsulting Engineer Senior Engineer
JJVH/ML/rrp
C:\WS2000\REPORTS\1650-99\16688-2
2
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
APPENDIX I
Noise Measurement Equipment and Listing of the Noise Measurements
Noise measurements were obtained by use of precision sound level
meters (noise monitors, per American National Standard ANSI SI.4-
1971). It is hereby certified that the information contained in
the data listing is the result of completely and carefully con-
ducted measurements and is, to the best of the undersigned's
knowledge, true and correct in all respects. _
METHODOLOGY,
A 24-hour noise measurement was obtained on April 28-29, 1987 at
the balcony area of model plan 2A at Sea Island. The measurement
result indicates the following:
CNEL: 67.5 dB
Hourly Leg 09:00 - 10:00: 66.1 dB(A)
As can be seen, the difference between the hourly Leg and the
CNEL is 1.4 dB. (Refer to Table I-2 for the complete listing of
the data obtained on April 28-29, 1987).
The noise measurement obtained on July 21, 1988 at the balcony
area of model plan 2A at Sea Island indicates an hourly Leg of
61.6 dB(A) for the hour between 9:00 am and 10:00 am. (Refer to
Table I-3.) This is 4.5 dB(A) less than the hourly Leg measured
at the same position on April 28-29, 1987. Therefore, it is es-
timated that the CNEL at the balcony area of model plan 2A on
July 21, 1988 is also about 4.5 dB lower, or about 63 dB•.
Please note that there was no sound wall surrounding the balcony
area for the measurement obtained on April 28-27, 1987.
Noise measurements obtained on July 21, 1988 at the patio area of
model plan 2B indicates an hourly Leg that is 1.6 dB(A) less than
that of the balcony area of model home plan 2A. Therefore, it is
estimated that the CNEL at the patio area of model home plan 2B
on July 21, 1988 is about 61 to 62 dB.
Noise measurements obtained at the interior spaces of the subject
units indicate a noise reduction from the exterior to the interior
of about 25 dB at plan 2A and about 22 dB at plan 2B. (Refer to
Table I-3.) Therefore, the interior CNEL can be calculated as
follows:
Living Room, Model Home, Plan 2A: 63 - 25 = 38 dB
Living Room, Model Home, Plan 2B: 62 - 22 = 40 dB
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
TABLE I-1
NOISE MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
The following items of equipment were -used to obtain the noise
measurements:
1. A -Weighted Noise Level - Analysis
Portable Noise Monitor, BBN Type 614, Serial Number 773504
Portable Noise Monitor, LDL 700, Serial Number 70OB0624
Portable Noise Monitor, LDL 700, Serial Number 70OB0625
Portable Noise Monitor, LDL 700, Serial Number 70OB0626
2. Acoustic Calibration
Acoustic Calibrator, B & K Type 4230, (94 dB @ 1000 Hz)
Acoustic Calibrator, GR Type 1567, (114 dB @ 1000 Hz)
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
c� v
TABLE I-2. SUMMARY OF HOURLY Leq AND CNEL OBTAINED ON
APRIL 28-29, 1987
PROJECT: THE LUSK COMPANY
POSITION: MODEL PLAN 2A. BALCONY
SOURCE: TRAFFIC ON JAMBOREEr AIRCRAFT
DATE: APR 28-29t'87 PEAK HOUR: 8:00-9:00
SOUND LEVELS: L90= 59.0 L50= 66.0 L10= 10.0 Leq= 67.3 dB(A)
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL: 67.5 dB
Time Sound
Level.
From To dB(A)
07:00-08:00
66.5
08:00-09:00
67.3
09:00-10:00
66.1
10:00-11:00
66.7
11:00-12:00
66.7
12:00-13:00
66.3
13:00-14:00
66.5
14:00-15:00
66.5
15:00-16:00
66.5
16:00-17:00
66.3
17:00-18:00
66.5
18:00-19:00
66.1
19:00-20:00
65.0
20:00-21:00
63.5
21:00-22:00
62.8
22:00-23:00
61.6
23:00-00:00
59.6
00:00-01:00
57.7
01:00-02:00
54.-0
02:00-03:00
52.6
03:00-04:00
48.7
04:00-05:00
50.8
05:00-06:00
57.7
06:00-07:00
62.4
r
Table I-3. Summary of Ten —Minute Leq Obtained on July 21, 1988
-------------
-----------
MODEL HOME
—
PLAN 2A
-------N.R.
MODEL
HOME PLAN
2B
-----TIME----
EXT—BALCONY
---------
INT—LIV.
--
RM. N.R.
------------ ----------------------------
EXT—PATIO INT—LIV.
RM.
N.R.
9:30-9:40
60.5
---------
35.9
---------
24.6
------------------
59.5
37.5
22.0
9:40-9:50
62.5
37.2
25.3
60.5
38.0
22.5
9:50-10:00
67.0 *
42.9
24.1
66.5 **
42.0
24.5
* N.R. -- Noise
** These data
loud aircraft
plan 2A
Reduction — difference between noise levels at exterior and
have been discarded in the calculation of the hourly exterior
noise compared to the previous 24—hour measurement at the
interior
Leq due to
balcony of
spaces
unusually
model home
Van Dell and Associates, Inc.
17801 Cadwright Road
kvine, Calttomta 92714
714/474-1400 • FAX:714/261-8482
August 26, 1988
Mr. James D. Hewicker,
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
SEA ISLAND PHASE
TRACT 9676
BUILDINGS 16, 17,
II
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
Planning Director
18, 19, AND 26
0e'-, -rlvUt
AUG319980 r
,N=
��
s �usr: ,,
Enclosed for your review is the documentation showing elevations
for buildings on the subject project. The table utilizes the
previous enclosures of John D. Lusk and Sons letter dated April
27, 1985 and modified on July 29, 1986. The table shows the
actual surveyed elevations in parentheses for your comparative
review.
The table now includes elevations for buildings 16, 17, 18, 19,
and 26 as well as 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35, approved in January
19BB, and 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 251 29, and 30, which were approved
in July 1987.
If you or your staff have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Sincerely,
VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Daniel R. Rainey, P.E.
Senior Vice President
RCE 26361
DRR:PJB:dw
Enclosures
CC: J. Waples, Lusk
John Talley, C.Y.
Steve Peters, Lusk
410.0100
p wort L;Ail
�"-3r
.1
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL 'UNITS GENERAL CASE
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM
AVERAGE ROOF,
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
APPAOVEq/PROPOSED
HAXINUH
RIDGE ELEVATIONS
•
PROPOSED UNIT PAD AREA
I
PROPOSED GARAGE PAD A AREA
'
Appr. Max.
Appr. Max.
'
Ave. Roof 6
Ave. Roof 6
"
Building
Appr. Appr. Max.
Pro. Max. Pro. Max. Appr. Max. P
p. Max.
Appr. Appr. Max.
Pro. Max., Pro. Max. Appr.
Max.
Pro. Max.
' Number
Pad Flat Roof
Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge
Ridge
Pad Flat Roof
Ave: Roof Flat Roof Ridge
Ridge
• 1
40 72
64.9 71.3
77
68.1
50. 82
65.8 67.1
87
68.1
�-'16
84(84.0).%16
107.7(109;6Q13.6(113.4)
121
09.7(113.4)
94 (93.7) 126
107.3(107.5) -
131
109.4 (109.3)
17
39(40.7) 71
64.4 (66.3)70.3
(70.0) 76
66.4(69.7)
49(50.4) 81
64.0(64.1) 66,.1(66.0)
86
66.1" (65.8)
'18
40(42.3) 72
66.2 (67.8)71.9
(71.6) 77
68.5(68.4)
50(51.9) 82
65.5(66.2) 6.7.5(67.6)
87
67.5 (67.8)
19
44 (43.6) 76
67.3 (69•3)73.2
(73.2) 81
69.3(73.0)
54(53.2) 86
66.9(67.2) 69.0(69.1)
91
.. 69.0 •(69.1)
20
68(66.6) 100
90.3 (9§.8) 96.2
(96.2) 105
92.3(96.2)
78(76.3) S10
a9.9 (93.8) 92.0 (92.1)
115
92.0 (93.0)
21
68(69.6) 100
93.3 (93.3) 99.2
(98.9) 105
95.3 (99.1)
78(70.2) 110
92.9 (93.3) .95.0 (95. 1)
115
95.0 (96.0)
22
72`(73.3) 104
96.3 (99.0)102.7
(102.6) 109
99.5 (102.7)
80(82.9) 112
97.2 (99.0) 98.5 (98.9)
117
99.5 (99.8)
23
74 (75.3) 106
99.5 (100.9105.2
(105.1) 111
101.8 (102.0)
84(85.4) 116
98.8(100.9) 100.8 (101.2)
121
300.8(101.1)
24
92 (92.6) 124
115.7(117.2121.6
(121.4) 129
117.7 (121.6)
102(101.4) 134
115.7(117.2) 115.7 (117.5)
139
117.7.(118.4)
25
94 (94.6) 1.26
118.3 (120.4124.2
(124.2) 131•
120. 3(124.2)
104(104.1) 136
117. 9(120.4) 117.9 (120.3)
141
120.0(121.1)
✓26
86 (90.3)118
113.3015. C019.7
(119.5123
116.5(119. 6)
98(99.8) 130
114.20 14.3) -
135
116.5 (116. 6)
34
94 C88.3126
112.5(113.6)118.4
(117.8) 131
114.5(114.8)
104(97.1) 136
112.1(112.2) 114.2(114.0)
141
114.2(114.8)
35
92 C90.8124
114. 5(116.4X20.4
(120.4) 129
116.5(117.3)
102(99.8) 134
114. 5 (115.0)114.5(116.3)
139
116.5 (117.3)
(Actual Field'Elevation)
Revised July 29. 1986
Building
Number
I
'16
%17
-- 98
20
21
22
I
23
24
25
'�26
i
34
35
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS GENERAL CASE
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXISIUM
AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM
FLAT ROOF AND
'
APP VED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
'
PROPOSED GARAGE PAD B AREA I
PROPOSED
GARAGE PAD C AREA
,
Appr. Max.
'
Ave. Roof 6
Appr. Appr. Max.
Pro. Max. Pro. Max. Appr. Hex.
Pro. Max.
App. Appr. Max.
Pro. Max. Appr. Max.
Proposed
Pad Flat Roof
Ave. Roof Flat RidRc_
Ridge
Pad -Ave. Roof
Ave. Roof Ridge•
Ridge .
50 82
64.1 - 87
66.3-
92 (93.5124
- 109.4(109. 3) 129
-
92(93.3) 124
107.7(308.1)129
109.7 (110.21)'
•49 (49.2)81
64.4(64.7) - 86
66.4(66.9)
- -
- -
50 (51.1)82
64.4 - 87
66.6(68.4)
54 (52.6)86
67.3(67.8) _ 91
69.3(70.2)
_ _
_ _.
•- .
78 (76.3) 110
90.3 (93.8) - In
92.3 (93.0)
- -
- -
-
80 (79.2) 112
93.3 (93.3) _ 117
95.3 (96.0)
- -
- -
-
84 (85.4) 116
97.7 (100.9) - 121
99.9 (101.1)
- -
- -
-
102(101.4134
115.3(117.2) 115. 3(117.5) 139
117.4(118.4)
lOf(109.1)138
118.3(120.4) 118.3(120.3) 143
120.3(121.1)
96 (97.3)128
113.5 115.5,(115.4)133
115.5(116.54)
96(96.0) 128
112.5 (114.3)133 _
114.7 (116.5)
104 (98.OX36
112.5(112.2) - 141
114.5(114.8)
- -
- -
-
102 [99.7134
114.1 (115.0)114.1 139
116.2 (117.3)
- -
- -
-
(Actual Field Elevation)
Revised July 29, 1986
3
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL
UNITS LIMITED CASE
(shaded.areal
APPROVED/PROPOSED 4AXItIUtI AVERAGE
ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM
FLAT ROOF
AND
'
PROPOSED GARAGE AREA a
,
•
Appr. Max.
'
Ave. Roof 6
'
Building
Approved
Appr. Max.
Proposed Max. Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Proposed
Max. `
Number
-Pad
Fiat Roof
Ave. Roof Flat Roof
RLdRe•
RLdxe
1
40
72
65.8
67.1
77
68.1
16
88(93.7)
L20
107.3(107.5)
109.4 (309.3)
125•
109.4
(109.3)
' 17
39(50.4)
71
64.0(64.1)
66.1(65.8)
76
66.1
(65.8)
18
44(52.1)
76
65.5(65.7)
-
8l
67.5
(67.5)
19
46(53.2)
78
66.9(67.2)
-
83
69.0
(69.1)
20
68 (66.6)
100
89.9 (93.8)
92.0 (92.1)
105
92.0
(93.0)
21
70 (69.6)
102
92.9 (93.3)
95.0 (95.1)
107
95.0
(96.0)
• 22
__
_
___
_
_
_
' 23
74 (75.3)
106
98.8 (99.0)
100.8 (301.2)
111
100.8
(101.1)
` 25
96 (94.6)
128
118.3 (120.4)
118.3 (120.3)
133
120.3
(121.1)
26
__
___
___
_
_
_
"
. 34-
35
__
___
___
(Actual
Field Elevation)
Revised
July. 29, 1986
41
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS LIMITED CASE (shaded area - -
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FIAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS -
'- PROPOSED.GARAGE AREA b
Approved Max.'
' Ave. Roof 6 -
Building Approved Approved.Max. Proposed Max. Pro. Max. Approved•Max. Proposqd Max. '
Number Pad Flat Roof Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge Ridge
16 ___ ___
. ' 17 ___
40(51,9) 72 65.5(67.6) - 77 67.5 (67.8) -
• 19
3 20 68 (66.6) 100 89.9 (93.8) 92.0 (92.1) 105 92.0 (93.0)
21 68 (69.6) 100 . 92.9 (93.3) 95.0 (95.1) 105 95.0 (96.0)
23 ___ ___
25 96 (94.6) j28 ' 118.3 (120.4) 118.3 (120.3) 133 120.3(121.1)
i 26 ___ ___ ___
35
(Actual Field Elevations) Ravisad July 29.•1986
a
c
1 .
SEA ISLAND UPHILL UNITS GENERAL CASE
,APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE
HOOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
AFPROVED/PROPOSED
MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
•
PROPOSED PAD AREA
•
Approved Max.
Approved
Pad
Ave.. Roof &'
Approved Max.
Proposed Max. Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Proposed
Max.
Number
Number
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof � FLat Roof Ridge
Ridge
27
96
128
120.8 126.0 133
122.2
28
- 102
134
126.5 131.7 139
129.2
-
29
106
(105.1)
'138
-129.6(130.8) 134.8(134.4) 143
132.2'(I'3lA)
30
102
(102.6)
134
12d.8(128.3) 132.0(131.8) 139
128.2
(129.4)
31
102
(100.71
134
125.2 (126.1) 130.4(130.1)139
127.9
(17,7.6)
32
102
(99.51
134
124.0 (125.5) 129.2(128.7)139
125.4
(125.8)
33
106
(97.0)
138
121.1 (122.3) 1.26.3(126.3)143
123.2
(123.4)-
(Actual Field.Elevations)
F-;�'
tI
cat
SEA ISLAND UPHILL UNITS LIMITED CASE (shaded area)
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXI M11M FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS .
zt
y
PROPOSED
UNIT PAD AREA
Appr. Max. PROPOSED
GARAGE PAD AREA
Ave. Roof 8&
'-
Building
Approved
Appr. Max
Prop Max. Approved
Prop. Max
Appr.
Appr..Max. Prop
Max. Prop. Max.
Approved Max. Pro. Max.
i.t
Number
Yad
Ave. Roof
Ave. Roof Max. Ridge Ridge
Pad
Flat Roof Ave.
Roof Flat Roof
Ridge Ridge'
i�
27
---
---
--- _-_
-_-
90
122
108.5
127 -
�^'
28•
96"
.t28
126.3 133,
128.6
96'
128
115.2
133 -
_
• 29
162 (105.1)
134
127.4 (127:6) 139
128.7(128.9)
102 (105.1) 134
118.3(118.2) 139 -
.•:
30
_-_
___
___ ___
102
.
31
___
___
___ ___
102
___
.
___ ___
-__
102
.�'
33
___
___
___ ___
___
106
___
:,Pad overlap area without
unit overlap.
n
Y�
-�'
-
(Actual Field
Elevations)
L.A
Van Dell affd,Associates, Inc.
17801 Cartwright Road
Irvine, Calliomia 92714
714/474-1400
January 19, 1988
RECEIYEA
Mr. James D. Hewicker, Planning Director Plomm9rgg
City of Newport Beach 0 Dercntnrmt
JAN2O19881w
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 CtTYQf
SEA ISLAND PHASE II 'CAOF
TRACT 9676
BUILDINGS 31, 32, 33, 34, AND 35
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
Enclosed for your review is the documentation showing elevations
for buildings for the above subject project. The table utilizes
the previous enclosures of the John D. Lusk and Sons letter dated
April 27, 1985 and as modified on July 29, 1986. The table shows
the actual surveyed elevations in parentheses for your
comparative review.
The table now includes elevations for buildings 31, 32, 33, 34,
and 35, as well as 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30, which were
approved in July 1987.
If you or your staff have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Sincerely,
VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Daniel R. Rainey, P.E.
Senior Vice President
RCE 26361
DRR:dw
Enclosures
CC: J. Waples, Lusk
John Talley, C.Y.
Steve Peters, Lusk
410.0100
JFi'F. ELeygrtouS R'S P/Lo��0�°
INO1GM'r- -('tt'd-T
D,}E s rytuc ruvt�s
Dp NoT ExoeVa T44a Ff Fl+2evEb
Mg* /Wg rUOP Af1C ir`' /Jt�N lN°PYto�
MAx RIDGE
Building
Number
27
28
29
30
31
32
33-
SEA ISLAND UPHILL UNITS GENERAL -CASE
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
Approved Pad
96
102
106 (105.1)
102 (102.6)
102 (100.79
102 ,(99.53-
106 (9,7.0)-
(Actual Field.Elevations)
Approved Max.
Ave. Roof &-
Approved Max.
Flat Roof
128
134
138
13.4
134
134
138
PROPOSED PAD AREA
Proposed LMax. Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Ave. Poor Flat Roof Ridge
120-8 126.0 133
126.5 131.7 139
129.6(130.8) 134.8-(134.4)143
126.8(128.3) 132.0(131.8)139
125.21126.1) 130.4(130..1)139
.124.0 (125.5) 129.2(128.7)139
121.1 (122.3) 126.3(126.3)143
Proposed Me%.
Ridge
122.2
129.2
132.2 (131.4)
128.2 (129.4)
127.9 (127.6)
125.4 (125.8)
123.2 (123.4)
Building
Number
SEA ISLAND. UPHILL UNITS LIMITED CASE (shaded area)
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXTMIIM FLAT ROOF'AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED UNIT PAD AREA Appr. Max. PROPOSED GARAGE PAD AREA
Ave. Roof &
Approved Appr. Max Prop Max. Approved Prop. Max Appr. Appr--Max. Prop Max. Prop. Max. Approved Max. Pro. Max.
Pad Ave. Roof Ave. Roof Max. Ridge Ridge Pad Flat Roof - nve. Roof Flat Roof Ridge Ridge
27 _-- _— ___ _-- 90 122 108.5 127
28- 96 :i.28 126.3 133 128.6 96• 128 115.2 133 -
29 102 (105.1) 134 127.4 (127.6) 139 128:7(128.9)102 (105.1) 134 118.3(118.2) 139 -
30 --- --- --- --- --- 102
31 --- --- --- --- --- 102 ---
32 --- --- --- --- --- 102 --- --- - -
33 --- --- --- --- ---• 106 --- --- t
*Pad overlap area without unit overlap.
(Actual Field Elevations)
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS LIdITED CASE (shaded area)
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM
AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT
ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED.OARAGE AREA b-
Approved Max.
Ave. Roof &
Building
Approved
Approved Max.-
Proposed Max. Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Proposed Max.
Number
Pad
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge
Ridge
1
---
---
--- - -
-
16
---
----
17
-- , _
---
- -
-
18
40
72
65.5 - 77
67.5
19
---
----
20
68 (66.6)
100
89.9 (93.8) 92.0 (92.1) 105
92.0 (93.0)
- 21
68 (69.6)
100
•-92.9 (93.3) 95•0 (95.1) 105
95.0 (96.0)
22
---
---
-� - -
-
23
---
---
- -
-
24
---
---
--- - -
-
25
96 (94.6)
.128 '
118.3 (120.4) 118.3 (120.3) 133
120.3(121.1)
t
-
26
---
---
-- -
-
34
35
---
---
— - -
-
(Actual Field Elevations)
Ttavised July 29,•1986
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE
UNITS LIMITED CASE (shaded area)
ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM
FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXINUM RIDGE ELEVATiQNS
PROPOSED GARAGE AREA a
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof &
Building
Approved
Appr. Max.
Proposed Max.
Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Proposed
Max.
Number
Pad
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof
Flat Roof
Ridge
Ridge
1
40
72
65.8
67.1
77
68.1
16
88
120
107.3
109.4
125
109.4
17
39
71
64.0
66.1
76
66.1
18
44
76
65.5
-
81
67.5
19
46
78
66.9
-
83
69.0
20
68 (66.6)
100
89.9 (93.8)
92.0 (92.1)
105
92.0
(93.0)
21
70 (69.6)
102
92•9 (93.3)
95.0 (95.1)
107
95.0
(96.0)
22
---
-
-
-
23
74 (75.3)
106
98.8 (99.0)
100.8 (101.2)
111
100.8
(101.1)
24
--
---
----
25
96 (94.6)
128
118.3 (120.4)
118.3 (120.3)
133
120.3
(121.1)
26
--
---
---
-
-
-
34
--
---
---
-
-
-
-
35
---
-
-
-
(Actual Field Elevation)
Revised July 29, 1986
SEA- ISLAND DOWNHILL
UNITS GENERAL CASE
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM
AVERAGE ROOF,
APPROVED/PROPOSED
MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF
AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM
RIDGE
ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED GARAGE PAD B AREA
PROPOSED
GARAGE PAD C
AREA
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof &
Building
Number
Appr. Appr. Max.
Pad Flat Roof
Pro. Max. Pro. Max.
Ave. Roof Flat Roof
Appr-
Pro. Max.
App.
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
Appr. Max.
Proposed
1
50 82
id Ridge
�g _
Ridge
Pad
Ave. Roof
Ave. Roof
Ridge
Rid e
g
64.1 -
87
66.3
_
16
92 124
- 109.4
129
_
_
=
17
49 81
64.4
_
92
124
10_7.7
129
109.7
-
86
66.4
_
_
18
50 82
64.4 -
87
66.6
_
_
_
-
19
54 86
67.3 -
91
69.3
_
_
-
20
78 (76.3) 110
90.3 (93.8) -
115
92.3
_
-
21
80 (79.2) 112
93.3 (93.3) -
117
95.3 (96.0)
_
_
22
-
-
-
-
23
84 (85.4) 116
97.7 (100.9) -
121
99.9 (101.1)
24
102(101.4134
115.3(117.2) 115.3(117.5)
139
117.4 (118.4)
25
106(109.1)138
118. 3(120.4) 118 - 3 (120.3)
143
120.3 (121.1)
26
96 128
113.5 115.5
133
115.5
96
128
34
104(98.8)136
112.5(112.2)
112.5
133 _
114.7
_
141
114.5(114.8)
-
35
102(103,..0)L34
114.1(115.0)114.1
139
116.2(117.3)
(Actual Field Elevation)
Revised July 29, 1986
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL 'UNITS GENERAL CASE
APPROVED/PROPOSED' MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM .FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED UNIT PAD AREA
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof
&
Building
Number
Appr.
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
Pro. Max.
Appr. Max.
Prop. Max.
Pad
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof
Flat go
Ridge
Ridge
1
40
72
64.9
71.3
77
68.1
16
84
116
107 7
-
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
vZA
25
26
34
35
113.6 121 109.7
39 71 64.4 70.3 76 66.4
40
72
66.2 71.9
77
44
76
67.3 --73.2
81
68 (66.6)
100
90.3 W-8) 96.2 (96.2)
105
68 (69.6)
100
93.3 (93.3) 99.2 (98.9)
105
72 (73.3)
104
96.3 (99.0) 102.7 (102.6)
109
74 (75.3)
106
99.5 (100-9105.2 (105.1)
111
92 (92.6)
124
115F7.(117.2121.6 (121.4)
129
94 (94.6)
126
118.3 (120.4124.2 (124.2)
131
86
118
11.3.3 - ._ 119.7
123
94 (88.3)
126
112.5(113.6)118.4 (117.8)
131
92 (90.8)124
114.6(116.4)L20.4 (120.4)
129
(Actual Field Elevation)
68.5
69.3
92.3(96.2)
95.3 (99.1)
99.5 (102.7)
101.8 (102.0)
117.7 (121.6)
120. 3 (124.2)
116.5
114.5(114.8)
116.5(117.3)
--Buildings 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30 Surveyed July 1987
Buildings 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 Surveyed January 1988,
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof &
Appr.
Appr. Max.
Pad
Flat Roof
50 ,
82
94 126
49 81
50 82
54 86
78(76.3) 110
78(70.2) 110
80(82.9) 112
84(85.4) 116
102(101.4) 134
104(104.1) 136
98 130
104(98.8) 136
102(101.0)134
PROPOSED GARAGE -PAD A AREA
Pro. Max: Pro. Max. Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge
65.8 67.1 87
107.3 - 131
64.0 66.1 86
65.5 6.7.5 87
66.9 69.0 91
89.9 (93.8) 92.0 (92.1) 115
92.9 (93.3) -95.0 (95.1) 115
97.2 (99.0) 98.5 (98.9) 117
98.8(100.9) 100.8 (101.2) 121
115.7.(117.2) 115.7 (117.5) 139
117.9(120.4) 117.9 (120.3) 141
114.2 - 135
112.1(112.2) 114.2(114.0) 141
114. 5(115.0)114.5(116.3) 139
Pro. Max.
Ridge
68.1
109.4
66.1
67.5
69.0 -
92.0 (93.0)
95.0 (96.0)
99.5 (99.8)
100.8(101.1)
117.7.(118.4)
120.0(121.1)
116.5
114.2(114.8)
116.5 (117.3)
Revised July 29, 19B6
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(714) 644-3200
June 16, 1988
SUBJECT:
Sea Island Townhomes,
Tract 9676
Addresses for Phase II
(revised)
Building
Number Unit Number
Address
1
3
15 Sea Cove Lane
1
4
13 Sea Cove Lane
1
1
19 Sea Cove Lane
1
2
17 Sea Cove Lane
17
59
1 Bay Cove Lane
17
60
3 Bay Cove Lane
17
61
7 Bay Cove Lane
17
62
5 Bay Cove Lane
18
63
9 Bay Cove Lane
18
64
11 Bay Cove Lane
18
65
15 Bay Cove Lane
18
66
13 Bay Cove Lane
19
67
17 Bay Cove Lane
19
68
19 Bay Cove Lane
19
69
23 Bay Cove Lane
19
70
21 Bay Cove Lane
20
71
21 Seabrook Cove
20
72
23 Seabrook Cove
20
73
27 Seabrook Cove
20
74
25 Seabrook Cove
21
75
29 Seabrook Cove
•21
76
31 Seabrook Cove
21
77
35 Seabrook Cove
21
78
33 Seabrook Cove
22
79
37Seabrook Cove
22
80
39 Seabrook Cove
22
81
43 Seabrook Cove
22
82
41 Seabrook Cove
23
83
45 Seabrook Cove
23
84
47 Seabrook Cove
23
85
51 Seabrook Cove
23
86
49 Seabrook Cove
24
87
87 Ocean Vista
24
88
85 Ocean Vista
24
89
81 Ocean Vista
24
90
83 Ocean Vista
25
91
79 Ocean Vista
25
92
77 Ocean Vista
25
93
73 Ocean Vista
Building Number
Unit Number
Address
25
94
75 Ocean Vista
26
95
71 Ocean Vista
26
96
69 Ocean Vista
26
97
65 Ocean Vista
26
98
67 Ocean Vista
16
57
63 Ocean Vista
16
58
61 Ocean Vista
16
55
57 Ocean Vista
16
56
59 Ocean Vista
27
99
60 Ocean Vista
27
100
58 Ocean Vista
27
101
62 Ocean Vista
27
102
64 Ocean Vista
28
103
68 Ocean Vista
28
104
66 Ocean Vista
28
105
70 Ocean Vista
28
106
72 Ocean Vista
29
107
76 Ocean Vista
29
108
74 Ocean Vista
29
109
78 Ocean Vista
29
110
80 Ocean Vista
30
ill
84 Ocean Vista
30
112
82 Ocear,-Vista
30
113
86 Ocean Vista
30
114
86 Ocean Vista
31
115
92 Ocean Vista
31
116
90 Ocean Vista
31
117
94 Ocean Vista
31
118
96 Ocean Vista
32
119
100 Ocean Vista
32
120
98 Ocean Vista
32
121
102 Ocean Vista
32
122
104 Ocean Vista
33
123
108 Ocean Vista
33
124
106 Ocean Vista
34
125
103 Ocean Vista
34
126
101 Ocean Vista
34
127
97 Ocean Vista
34
128
99 Ocean Vista
35
129
95 Ocean Vista
' 35
130
93 Ocean Vista
35
131
89 Ocean Vista
35
132
91 Ocean Vista
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By 04.4v a =
Javier 9. Garcia
Associate Planner
JSG:11
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(714) 644-3200
September 25, 1986
SUBJECT: Sea Island Townhomes , r)-.40- q4b .
Addresses for Phase II rcvl."
Building Number
Unit Number
Address
1
3
a 13
Sea Cove Lane
1
4
�y 15
Sea Cove Lane
1
1
19
Sea Cove Lane
1
2
17
Sea Cove Lane
17
59
1
Bay Cove Lane
17
60
3
Bay Cove Lane
17
61
7
Bay Cove Lane
17
62
5
Bay Cove Lane
18
63
9
Bay Cove Lane
18
64
11
Bay Cove Lane
18
65
15
Bay Cove Lane
18
66
13
Bay Cove Lane
19
67
17
Bay Cove Lane
19
68
19
Bay Cove Lane
19
69
23
Bay Cove Lane
19
70
4
Bay Cove Lane
20
71
21
Seabrook Cove
20
72
23
Seabrook Cove
20
73
27
Seabrook Cove
20
74
25
Seabrook Cove
21
75
29
Seabrook Cove
21
76
31
Seabrook Cove
21
77
35
Seabrook Cove
21
78
33
Seabrook Cove
22
79
37
Seabrook Cove
22
80
39
Seabrook Cove
22
81
43
Seabrook Cove
22
82
41
Seabrook Cove
23
83
45
Seabrook Cove
23
84
47
Seabrook Cove
23
85
51
Seabrook Cove
23
86
49
Seabrook Cove
24
87
87
Ocean Vista
24
88
85
Ocean Vista
24
89
81
Ocean Vista
24
90
83
Ocean Vista
Building Number
Unit Number
Address
25
91
79
Ocean
Vista
25
92
77
Ocean
Vista
25
93
73
Ocean
Vista
25
94
75
Ocean
Vista
26
95
71
Ocean
Vista
26
96
69
Ocean
Vista
26
97
65
Ocean
Vista
26
98
67
Ocean
Vista
16
57
63
Ocean
Vista
16
58
61
Ocean
Vista
16
55
57
Ocean
Vista
16
56
59
Ocean
Vista
27
99
60
Ocean
Vista
27
100
58
Ocean
Vista
27
101
62
Ocean
Vista
27
102
64
Ocean
Vista
28
103
68
Ocean
Vista
28
104
66
Ocean
Vista
28
105
70
Ocean
Vista
28
106
72
Ocean
Vista
29
107
76
Ocean
Vista
29
108
74
Ocean
Vista
29
109
78
Ocean
Vista
29
110
80
Ocean
Vista
30
111
84
Ocean
Vista
30
112
82
Ocean
Vista
30
113
86
Ocean
Vista
30
114
88
Ocean
Vista
31
115
92
Ocean
Vista
31
116
90
Ocean
Vista
31
117
94
Ocean
Vista
31
118
96
Ocean
Vista
32
119
100 Ocean Vista
32
120
98
Ocean
Vista
32
121
102
Ocean
Vista
32
122
104
Ocean
Vista
33
123
108
Ocean
Vista
33
124
106
Ocean
Vista
34
125
103
Ocean
Vista
34
126
101
Ocean
Vista
34
127
97
Ocean
Vista
34
128
99
Ocean
Vista
35
129
95
Ocean
Vista
35
130
93
Ocean
Vista
35
131
89
Ocean
Vista
35
132
91
Ocean
Vista
By
Tracy E. Williams
Associate Planner
TEW/11
y.�
.0 �
40
4,
A4 1-f 5 16 -6
70
6 7 \1
1 68
10101'r
NOTE:ODD NUMBERS ARE LOWER UNITS
EVEN NUMBERS ARE UPPER UNI
NO. DATE REVISIONS App
REV DATE: LATEST q4
2
VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC,
SEA ISLAND PROJECT NO:
CIVIL ENGINEERS
3
DRWG NO-z
SURVEYORS LAND PLANNERS
4
PROJ. MGR
I /ISHEETi
R17801 CARTWRI GHT ROAD TENTATIVE T R A C'T NO. 9676 DES EN
Gs
7
JRVINE CA 92714
(714) 474-1400
DESIGNER:,.
'410 40 SCALE EXHISI T- - 150126,10]PF, 41001 86 V-A�ug-84 10,59 .01 J03�1
'p,r,'=.
'' , . .. I - No. Date Revision` - a'.
SUMMARY
l,.�'', �.-i r a 1 t'
OQ,Pa�G7toN
- r
. - s-zzss 2Ev/sE :ylf/vewars
z
NET ACREAGE:
1 1.63 ' 6-,& e—jS . A,DD ACTU L '
zL. !J/2/✓EW4Y tENGTflS 1 > a
NUMBER of uNITs• $ 2 „ ,:3 -i r- ��i ,i
/
PARKING REQUIRED: ip 9=23 aa> s'_yI3I0Ns I, kr
.w I /
/
4
Open Spaces (1.0/unit--.5 guest, .5 uncovered) 82 ' k
- f aA 11
Covered Spaces (one per unit) 82 - u
i7
• - _ 1 , �
. Total Spaces Required 164 ` "�
4
_ - _ - - _ _ _ !' --'..'�-r,
"., �,,.-..-^r I� .* PARKING PROVIDED: _ �`, . rt"1
.F: 1` e °I
' 11 . '
o • to ��
1 �,
EXISTING SEA ISLAND ELOPMENT Spaces I
ON ts? u - .
nits � AREA Covered Spaces 164
- Total Spaces Provided 171
r. #*# 4
4-�:.'' :�-� I I , I 1, - I -1 � I I I , . I . . . ............... \ I- I . I - �'
_ - „
co �, .. �. -- Z - - MIX: y
JAMBOREE ROAD \e Unit T)/pe NO. Of Units 9fi Of Total ,
s. .
` r
,
. I - . -.. . . ................I.. ........� --.�-- � - . . \ . I I
Unit 1 2 8 - 3 4.%
NM�r• -
I(ey Map P' 1 2j2 .. Unit 2 22, 27%
Q� 32 39%r
- 1Go V, Urit 3
r - - RI3� ,I 9q ♦� ,,
3 2 ® - Total 82 10096 ' ,
✓� /�
NOTE GARAGE SETBACKS FROM BACK OF SIDEWALK
l2 -Jr �� —� � MUST BE 5' or LESS or 20' or MORE. Consultant• -
e - 2 \
i
P 2 to e
r :•. r: ����-0,l�I 1 It
3q.
a 1l1 \ Ip�O Igo ®� --/ 5�. 2 �/� 10p .II
- II
j -f- ID6 l ' I�2 1� , 6.00y� - 2 4;
-O �w ( 5
_✓ tp1 8 43
RP �\. o, a �.� y 2
` �`� P `L 0 0 - 5 ° ,69
`Z t Q� dy
` 1
`\� Itp ` 1g•' �\o O \ 60 3�IgC,
F
O ' • •.
v1' 65 \ $16\ 1
:•
yr� ''•
i -�,3 2 'fir° ,` •, 1\• '
4\
� --., tt2 r 11 E 11 �,, '.
� - ottl 2l• g` ZRI2Ft r
N psi 3 :. qg 26
r ZQ1� It3 GQ� , I,n 1v \ 313
•1
2 0 ..• -
1* . < - t O . R, 0
•\
gl3 a 3Q 1 .••'''
k A� .1 QO 9� �.., Q q0.
I j20 W �1 -,: •'- \' ` { fib .••••:
4' \r32 lI, g6 92 -O j�/ n�� r�9 y qry ,.•••-••• '.
o _
} \\\\ 2�1 I IZI \\G� 0$ D °r,ip�O / s ./ ^q - y ••.••3'4 .
i
�
I
�
I
.
-
I
�
.
.
�.
.
-
I
I
.
\ .
- - _t;. �.
�-�r1IV
l1i� �,.I .�./ /. N�. /.\I. z If�
-
.i r �, I I1-I �,,� �.r1I I 1, 1r,. .. Ih�.. � - IEI .I1
. ,M-,n.. ��.IM. 1�,. . I 1ID, II �IM,I� . ,:-�.�rI � I �, IM�I �II�.I f.
; I
rI4, I., I I
.., I � . IS11 -�'III-I 2.�I -I I4
-.I."., I. I1� ..
-I .- - -.,, .I I .-
, I� �, �- 1.IM� I I I2. .1I .1I1�II-..II
..- I i I.#
*, . � 1-. 1.
. 'k,.-,,1-I -I.�-I,I � I; -.
�'
\ \% .1-
\ -
v v I .
., kf
♦ \ 4
v � - ;
\ \
�V -.
. ' * ,, it
4•
-
\. F ,,.
EXISTING SEA ISLAND ' ,
. -
/ - I _ 'l
Project:
. - _ .
` - I , if
oo. 1�
_ SFA ISIANW _ '
.. - �� - Newport Beath, California k
s N " s \ \\ IZ2; O ? 00✓. , : _' N I {'` ° ti N DEVELOPMENT AREA - t7550,� Halle Averxie'
Z �'o;/,�\; o ,� ; W",—z ' a 1 '`� /�' Existin Tennis Courts �ir,e, California 927t3 "
/y �y ,,p�s 1..� i �� ^••, , p 1 d) 557.8220 1
s - �•/ ate\ \\ r t -T , O - tr t O O�/ D' j ,1 a �� 2?3' �1 •: --� `� - 4 .'.'t fi 'k1
6 \V A l �� ��� 1 Z , � - - �j
,' �. ��`� v _ �o.� a� oa ;�,� �.. /� TRACT.:967�
2 % W -, O j 0 �ft'
>= PROPOSED ..0 0' C) a $1 O , '
r SPA a°' ' 93 O`; lY r 3l3 w� nN J� �/ tea- 0 ` �� -� _ ` ' (I,i
O ��
2 tea- 13U , �...,... I
s ',. -- .'+«. ,(\ - Q�./ On` En } I,�q \ i•....••.• `• ,,..• - \�p� �Q� , �'c2- \ O O �lL�� /,r - ao°z _ ~` ti
$ " - /'ter t <,0�1', r. ijT' O 1 `�_ 313 : _ - �,*✓ ZQ? p10 � e - ws >O `C- I ` 2D �' •y �. • � '�•
JO. J S. r 1,
or � - _ 1�'A - �p6 O '°- , .:. ` � �' O M\ \'^ I - - N , S ul�� W Q . ; 27. 2 20,/' ; - - � �, ` :e
,9 * _ _,.,,. 7_ _
-....� ,t, , �-�9 t7 1M13 10 lOf ,29 .. ,. t.. _ .,'.s-.,. .•:�i' ��� -� -
. - b� 1U 1?I1e` ���, 1 i-} r `;
, 1� I ,
A
Iyo �� 3Rj3 r 36 a i o y �� �j' I �9 �' •,• • �' 369 ��
:IA �i' 1 t �I 9 3' P ti �3 �, `PCs• O Existing Recreation r E ,
D I. �.
, i,,
. ¢ ® . R .� l2� O Center : 4 1, r s''
E F ! z `, QI X 2� J�� / a 2 1 �_) 8336
V l 19 17 m /�
k '` - �` �, 23 p,� 8z 22 gR13R l D \h S ���g r Q �3 2R/2R t'
Fti -F "? . ti K QjI t
1 / 1 A3 : L: L G9 `
^ 2R\2R
_ .. 1 r7o 19 ios 67 :1 t�'1,� — �00 Existing Lagoon Lake �Z ;........ -
a 3R/3R :Cr
iT r
-.1 ,.���I.I-,II 1�II I .% 1I
_ "�-1.,1�,I� - -. II.
-II� .
1
�
.
-I���- ,-- -II-�7I
I
4.- I ' 7�
�
I
�
.I -I '.�I
. I
-
I
-- .I
..��
- I,1-
.�
I -
I .1 jI �
-� -I ��-7� . I.,I:- � -� ,� . .I �.
- IIII,, ��
p �I-
I I.I
M �.
`�� eo FF - PI-�qs�—r' HASE 1 �� ��
R - pHq E 4 20` - -
- : -_ r
:, SE 2 Min - - - - _ "
�� - - _ --- — a'1d PBI'tl'1@t'S
� a - _ . . Temporary Model Parking Lot .
CORBIN/YAMAFUJI
•—_ . � at Building 19 site. Building to be ,
`PARTNERS, INC. ,
a--�_o ROAD constructed within Phase 4 ROAD -
JAMBOREE
Architecture/Planning- d 4i,�
`, .,... - - — - - -- - - --- g - — r u: e — -' 99 itchell South
— - - ---- - — 17 2 M
.. - zz:ec _ —------------� _ -- r —_ - __. __--_--T_ ,z.w '°e o0
. ze.00 e.••. zs•oo "Suite 200
` .. ,\
5 .-
I - •
:, j, . � - v
;3;..�r- -L I ,
,;,, \,'y NOTE: Odd numbers are lower units, even numbers are upper units
.
,'-- - Wr ils .rN rr etlt 1-4, 55-132) .
- - ii
I
1
1
I
I
,
,
,
Irvine, CA 927.14 �_
(714) 660-0970< �,,
1301 Broward, East: ; 3
Suite 303 ' ' '
Fort Lauderdale, FL33301 I 3
(305) 462-4964 : , `
}J . j. , - I Job: SE,41.ISLAI�ID. t333�
ALL BLDGS HAVE: 4 UNITS PER BLD .(EXCEPT BLDG. # 33 - 2 UNITS ONLY) Is1.sue Date:` I I- Iv'-84 .),
1'-
•
,
E
-
-
.
.
(
t`
..
1. - I
i-
E
-
;
-
. i
, ,
I
,. ,
\ - . ,
5 "
." -
. -
�
- �
_
.
-
`.
•
"
"
-. - -
� ,
,
- ''' ,
25 50 200
t.
0 100
F
I
-
I
1
-
<-
„�
t .
W <
LL ;
Y
..
�
f
PHASE MODELS PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3
O BLDG. # 17/ 18 . 27,28/1/16/26 29,30/20/.21/22/23/24/25 31/32/33/19/34/35
o BLDG. TYPE D F C 13 E D E BR CR D DR ER F E F i
Pr01.Arch-.-F-1-1ANUEt-
•, , .
:c,
"CONVENTION L"'
"DOWNHILL"
PROJECT
Drawn: Ic.e,
s
STORY
2, STORY
TOTALS
.
Checked:
5
BLDG. TYPE]
A
B
C
D
E
F
,"
Sheet Title:
.'
I
/
SITE PLAN - ,
QUANITY
4.
3
3
9
3
2
21 BLDGS
_
J" ,
r,,,j
Sheet ..,�
�1
(UP)\36�
16 2
2B 3'6(/
1 A
3Af
2A 3A
1 A
2A
I
,ti
PLAN
("
.
_
„
A
1 (DN)
3A'
1A 2A�
2A 3A
1B
3�
26 3B
1B
26
'
r„�
.
-
-
r`'
SD"1
°<
TOTAL UNITS/BLDG
2
4 -
4
4
4 .
4
82 UNITS,- .-
,' s y'�� }
NOTE: THE "A" IN PLAN 1A, 2A, 3A DENOTES
FRONT
ENTRY AT FIRST,
FLOOR ON CONV. BLDGS
-
d 3'r�41
-
AND AT SECOND FLOOR ON DOWNHIL BLDGS.
,
- `
-
,Ll
THE "B" 'IN PLAN 1B, 26, 33 DENOTES SIDE ENTRY, AT SECOND
FLOOR ON CONY. BLDGS
a -, `.'
h <<t., s,,
. AND AT FIRST FLOORDOWNHILL BLDGS.
` `% ., ,• -
S 1�-ljE
.
,
.
_
F, ,
a
RESIDENTIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS
Telephone: (714) 644-3200 Plan Check No: 2 7
By: Bill Luttrell, Associate Planner B : Javier Garcia, ssociate Planner
By: Dana Dobbs, Assistant Planner
Date: 12-$7 Address:
Corrections Required:
Legal Description: Lot 2 Block Section Tract clCo%�a
Covenant required to combine lots or portions of lots. Please have
owner's signature notarized on attached document and return to me.
Lot Size
Zone ` c-
Number. of Units -("VI
Buildable Area
Maximum Structural Area (Area including exterior walls,
stairway on one level and required parking). x buildable area.
Proposed Structural Area: x buildable area.
Provide tissue overlay of calculations to verify provided square
footage.
r Open Space Area cu.ft. (Volume of space equal to buildable
width times buildable height times 6). This area must be six feet in an
direction (6'x6'x6') and open on two sides or one side and above.
1
P
■ i
Required Setbacks (Note: Architectual projections, i.e. bay windows or
balconies not allowed in setbacks).
Ovw
dL I
Front r dv?4104� 0 5POO�or 2d mih Jcav�.ge5
Qk.. Rear
-(gyp S i
Right Side
r iLeft Side 7
Height Limitation ,,) , '1; ✓
Measured from natural grade to average roof height. Dimension all
elevations from natural grade to midpoint and maximum ridge of roof
planes. Qmvw�i ��vc F,:s �s iv r�ti maA'Onu�, averayz
z) maK�wue, -�(ai- 1roaF' 1V, ,
Show natural grade line shown on all elevati3a�ap2tori Vbfjkq� }niSp6cq�o 1
Distance between buildings of C "�T f3Ki�v�uy
5e¢ a0}r. J e� wpl of )e*r.
Maximum Coverage
Number of Stories
Parking (9' - 4" x 19' - 0" min. clear dimensions, one space; 17' - 6" x
19' - 0" min. clear dimensions, two spaces). (Third required space may
be B' x 161). Show clear interior dimensions of garage.
Fair Share Contribution ryAw1we, AW.,*tr r-0e-
an Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee 05 i 6 , x `! �2 3 o TvefOQ
Park Dedication Fee rt A
SPECIAL APPROVAL REQUIRED THROUGH:
Modifications Committee. Indicate Modification Approval Number on plans.
Planning Commission:
Use Permit
Variance
Resubdivision - Tract
Site Plan Review
other -
Public Works:
Easement/Encroachment Permit
Curb Cut
Subdivision Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Approval of Landscape Plans
Building Department:
Grading Engineer
Parks Department:
Approval of Landscape Plans
Coastal Development Permits:
Approval in Concept
(Note: File 3 sets of plans: plot plan, floor plan, elevations).
Coastal Development Permit No.
Categorical Exclusion No.
(Building permits may be issued 10 days following issuance of C.E.O.)
Waiver/Exemption
Miscellaneous
1. Floor plan fully dimensioned showing all room uses.
2. Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings,
fences to property line. Show second and/or third floor building
footprint on plot plan.
R 3. Association Approval (Advisory)
vy
4. Other qb! -D Oti fy a/ (NO O Cc.0 P*Pick 1 u un L SU KA. I TP14
ac Acou6-ncwc, ,Pkmwryoa Iixfm6i- wo Nols6 Lw1/�l.s
E:XNibrrV*o Ar +5 CnIeL owo (05 r,45L re4leuhuela .
NOTE: It is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain
the necessary approvals from the departments checked above. If you have questions
regarding your application, please contact me at (114) 644-3200.
MISC3
1
s ■
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
1260 BAST BATBLLA AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805
17141 635.9520
JOHN J. VAN HOUTBN, PE, Principal
�! V
DAVID L. WIELAND, Senior Engineer R E C E I V E D ,L
MIKE SANG LEE, Associate Engineer KING
March 30, 1988 pIAN Project File 1668-86
6 Mr
31 i9flgL _3
THE LUSK COMPANY clTv of
NEWPOI2l MACH,
P.O. Box C19560 CALIF. �4
Irvine, CA 92713-9560
,V s
Attention: Mr. Baker Guthrie
Subject: Certification of Compliance, Units 123 and 124,
Building 33 and Units 125 through 128, Building 34,
Sea Island
Reference: "Recommended Noise Barrier and Sound Transmission
Class (STC) for Glazing Assemblies at Sea Island," J.
J. Van Houten & Associates, dated April 11 1987
Gentlemen:
On March 14, 1988, noise measurements were obtained at interior
and exterior locations within Units 123 and 124, Building 33.
The instruments used to obtain the data and the data listings are
provided in Appendix I. As a result of these measurements it is
concluded that the interior spaces of Units 123 and 124, Building
33 comply with the City and State noise standards. That is, the
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) within the interior
living space is 45 dB or less. In addition, it is concluded that
the balcony area of Unit 124 ofBliTid g 33 complies with the
City's exterior standard of 65-"dB—CN"E —. A`i;"th'e patio area of
Unit 123, Building 33, the noise level does not comply with the
exterior standard. However, with the construction of the sound
barrier recommended in the referenced report, the CNEL at the
patio area of Unit 123, Building 33 will comply with the City's
exterior standards.
Although not tested, it is also concluded that,the interior
spaces of Units 125, 126, 127, and 128,1 B ila"ng il_ also comply
with the City and State noise standards. With the noise barriers
in place as recommended in the referenced report, the CNEL at the
patio/balcony areas within Units 125, 126, 127, and 128, Building
34, will comply with the City's exterior standards.
Summary of Test Results
The interior and exterior CNEL has been assessed based upon the
noise level measurements obtained at four locations within Units
123 and 124, Building 33. Also used in the assessment are the
0
THE LUSK COMPANY
PROJECT FILE 1668-86
results of a previous 24-hour measurement obtained at the Sea Is-
land site. (Appendix I provides the methodology used in our
assessment of the interior and exterior CNEL.) The following
provides a summary of the CNEL for the subject units:
Unit
124, Building 33
124, Building 33
123, Building 33
123, Building 33
Location CNEL
Balcony
65 dB
Living Room
42
Patio
66
Living Room
43
Please note that we have inspected each unit where noise measure-
ments were obtained to determine if properly glazed window as-
semblies were installed. It was determined that the assemblies
are in a true and tight fitting condition when closed.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact the under-
signed 1t 714/635-9520.
Very truly yours,
JAnsuli4ingnginc
JVAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES INC.
n, P.E.
er
JJVH/ML/rrp
C:\WS2000\REPORTS\1650-99\16683-15
2
Mike Lee
Senior Engineer
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
APPENDIX I
Noise Measurement Equipment and Listing of the Noise Measurements
Noise measurements were obtained by use of precision sound level
meters (noise monitors, per American National Standard ANSI SIA -
1971). It is hereby certified that the information contained in
the data listing is the result of completely and carefully con-
ducted measurements and is, to the best of the u igned's
knowledge, true and correct in all respects.
�p49.tFESS/��v�l
F..12-31-9
J hn J. Va Lkten,9�'�
onsulting ngiheer ustics
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
u
APPENDIX I
Methodology
Table Description
I-1 Instrument Listing
I-2 Complete Listing of 24-Hour Data Obtained on April 28-
29--01987
I-3 Complete Listing of Data Obtained on March 14, 1988
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
METHODOLOGY
A 24-hour noise measurement was obtained on April 28-29, 1987 at
the balcony area of model plan 2A at Sea Island. The measurement
result indicates the following:
CNEL: 67.5 dB
Hourly Leq 12:00 - 13:00: 66.3 dB(A)
13:00 - 14:00: 66.5 dB(A)
As can be seen, the difference between the hourly Leq's and the
CNEL is about 1 dB. (Refer to Table I-2 for the complete listing
of the data obtained on April 28-29, 1987).
Noise measurement obtained on March 14, 1988 at the balcony area
of model plan 2A at Sea Island indicates the following hourly Leq
(Refer to Table I-3):
Hourly Leq 12:00 - 13:00: 67.0 dB(A)
13:00 - 14:00: 67.0 dB(A)
This is about 0.5 dB(A) greater than the hourly Leq measured at
the same position on April 28-29, 1987. Therefore, it is es-
timated that the CNEL at the balcony area of model plan 2A on
March 14, 1988 is also about 0.5 dB higher, or about 68 dB.
Noise measurements obtained at the balcony and patio areas of the
subject units indicate the following:
Balcony, Patio,
1240Buildina 33 121,Building 11
Hourly Leq 12:00 - 13:00 64 dB(A) -
13:00 - 14:00 - 65 dB(A)
The CNEL at the exterior locations can be calculated as follows:
Balcony, 124 Building 33: (64 - 67) + 68 = 65 dB
Patio, 123 Building 33: (65 - 67) + 68 = 66 dB
Noise measurements obtained at the interior spaces of the subject
units indicate a noise reduction from the exterior to the interior
of about 23 dB. (Refer to Table I-3.) Therefore, the interior
CNEL can be calculated as follows:
Living Room, 124 Building 33: 65 - 23 = 42 dB
Living Room, 123 Building 33: 66 - 23 = 43 dB
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
TABLE I-1
NOISE MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
The following items of equipment were used to obtain the noise
measurements:
1. A -Weighted Noise Level.- Analysis
Portable Noise Monitor, BBN Type 614, Serial Number 773504
Portable Noise Monitor, LDL 700, Serial Number 70OB0624
Portable Noise Monitor, LDL 700, Serial Number 700B0625
Portable Noise Monitor, LDL 700, Serial Number 70OB0626
Acoustic Calibrator, B & K Type 4230, (94 dB @ 1000 Hz)
Acoustic Calibrator, GR Type 1567, (114 dB @ 1000 Hz)
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
TABLE I-2
PROJECT:
POSITION:
SOURCE:
DATE:
SOUND LEVELS
SUNAIARY OF HOURLY LEQ AND CNEL OBTAINED ON APRIL
28-29, 1987.
JOHN D. LUSK & SON
MODEL PLAN 2A, BALCONY
TRAFFIC ON JAMBOREE
APR 28-29,187 PEAK HOUR: 08:00-09:00
L90= 59.0 L50= 66.0 L10= 69.0 Leq= 67.3 dB(A)
Time Sound
Level,
From To dB(A)
07:00-08:00
66.5
08:00-09:00
67.3
09:00-10:00
66.1
10:00-11:00
66.7
11:00-12:00
66.7
12:00-13:00
66.3
13:00-14:00
66.5
14:00-15:00
66.5
15:00-16:00
66.5
16:00-17:00
66.3
17:00-18:00
66.5
18:00-19:00
66.1
19:00-20:00 65.0
20:00-21:00 63.5
21:00-22:00 62.8 COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL: 67.5 dB
22:00-23:00
61.6
23:00-00:00
59.6
00:00-01:00
57.7
01:00-02:00
54.0
02:00-03:00
52.6
03:00-04:00
48.7
04:00-05:00
50.8
05:00-06:00
57.7
06:00-07:00
62.4
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
TABLE I-3. SUMMARY OF TEN-MINUTE Leq OBTAINED ON MARCH 14, 1988
MODEL PLAN 2A
----------
124, Building 33
-----------------------------------
TIME
----------
EXT-BALCONY
----------
EXT-BALCONY INT-LIV. RM.
--------------------
N.R.
-----
12:20-12:30
67.0 dB(A)
-- 40.5 dB(A)
--
12:30-12:40
66.5
63.5 dB(A) 40.5 1
23.0
12:40-12:50
67.0
64.5 41.0
23.5
12:50-13:00
67.5
64.0 41.0
23.0
13:00-13:10
67.0
13:10-13:20
67.5
13:20-13:30
67.0
13:30-13:40
67.0
13:40-13:50
67.0
13:50-14:00
67.0
14:00-14:10
68.0
14:10-14:20
68.5
123, Building 33
------------------------------------
EXT-PATIO INT-LIV. RM. N. R.
---------- ---------- ------
64.5 dB(A) 41.5 dB(A) 23.0
64.5 41.0 23.5
65.0 41.5 23.5
* N.R. - NOISE REDUCTION - DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOISE LEVELS AT EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR SPACES
AI -..
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
JOHN J. VAN HOUTEN, PE, Principal
DAVID L. WIELAND, Senior Engineer
July 6, 1987
THE LUSK COMPANY
P.O. Box C19560
Irvine, CA 92713-9560
Attention
Subject:
Reference:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Baker Guthrie
f
1260 EAST KATELLA AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805
(9141 635-9520
Y REC"Ely
Plannirif D
Deoartment
JUC8 198Z .
Npcilry OF
ORr$EAC
CALIF. H,
oject File 1668-86
Noise Assessment for Interior and Exterior Glazing
Assemblies at Sea Island
Precise Grading Plan, Sea Island, Tentative Tract No.
9676, prepared by Van Dell and Associates, Inc., May
10, 1986
As requested, we have examined the referenced plans and performed
an analysis to ensure compliance of the subject project with the
State's noise insulation standards (CAL ADM CODE: Title 25) and
the City's conditions of approval which have been placed on the
project.
Conditions of Approval
The Planning Commission has placed the following noise related
conditions of approval on the project (per meeting August 7,
1987):
"25. That the noise impact from Jamboree Road and from
the street at the southerly end of the tract be
considered and that the dwelling units be designed
to provide for sound attenuation in accordance
with the requirements of law and the recommenda-
tions of a qualified acoustical engineer.
28. That sound attenuation structures be provided
along the easterly side of Jamboree Road in ac-
cordance with the recommendations of a qualified
acoustical engineer. The design may provide for
walls and/or earth berms to lessen the amount of
exposed vertical wall face and provide for im-
proved aesthetic treatment."
THE LUSK COMPANY t PROJECT FILE 1668-86
The exterior recreation space consists of the tennis courts which
are (or will be) protected from the traffic noise on Jamboree
Road by the proposed buildings (for example, refer to Figure 1).
Noise measurements have been obtained at locations outside and
inside of the model homes to assess the CNEL generated by traffic
on the road. Appendix I provides an explanation of the A -
weighted measure of noise level and the CNEL measure of noise ex-
posure. The noise measurement data is provided in Appendix II.
The CNEL at the existing and future tennis court locations is
less than 65 dB.
RIOR NOISE CON
The City and State standards specify that the community noise
equivalent level within any interior habitable living area should
not exceed 45 dB. The following are recommended to ensure com-
pliance with this standard:
1. All glazing assemblies in the project should be well fitted,
well weatherstripped assemblies and should provide a minimum
sound transmission class (STC) as indicated in Sheet 1. It
should be noted that all glazing assemblies not otherwise
specified in the sheet should pr-ovide a minimum STC of 22.
This is generally achieved with a pane of single strength
glass in a well fitted, well weatherstripped assembly.
Enclosure 1 provides a description of the assemblies used in
our analysis. Refer to Appendix III for the exterior to in-
terior noise computations. STC is per ASTM Designations E413
and E90 or E336.
2. Bathrooms which have a tightly fitted door separating them
from the adjacent living areas are not considered to be
habitable spaces and, therefore, do not require sound rated
assemblies.
340ANOVA
It is our understanding that the City of Newport Beach standards
require the CNEL to be 65 dB or less within the exterior living
spaces of the project. At Sea Island the outdoor recreation
areas are interpreted to be the exterior living space which is to
be protected. As previously indicated, the exterior recreational
area is protected by the building structures and is (or will be)
exposed to a CNEL which is no greater than 65 dB.
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
r
THE LUSK COMPANY
PROJECT FILE 1668-86
If you have any questions regarding these rem commendations, please
contact the undersigned at 714/635-9520.
Very truly yours,
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATE , INC.
o n J. V Houten, P.E.
C nsulting Engineer in Acoustics
JJVH/rrp
C:\WS2000\REPORTS\1650-99\1668GLAZ
3
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
-,
0
OUTDOOR SkCE
Existing Tennis Cour!s
— — Temporary Model Parking Lot 'I,'
HpSE 2 at Building 1 g site. Building to be
Q constructed within Phase 3 -- '
Figure 1. Location of the Outdoor Recreational Area Which is Protected
from Traffic Noise on Jamboree Road by the Proposed Buildings.
�•7
Y j i
1
1
NOTE: All other glazing
assemblies not specified
herein should have an STC
of 22. This is generally
provided with a pane of
single strength glass
(3/32")
W
J
H
a
a
P
0
Sheet 1.
Recommended Sound Transmission
Class (STC) Ratings for Glazing
Assemblies
Enclosure 1
/W Y I-E L A B OR AT OR 1 E,5 /Et Segundo, California. 322.1763 , 678.4251 . rW x 910.34E 6699 . Cable W YLAB
Y f
r- Premiere Aluminum Products
18233 South Hoover
Gardena, California 90247
J
SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS TEST
ON
FIVE PANEL STRUCTURES
•FOR
PREMIERE ALUMINUM PRODUCTS
September 22, 1972
STATE OF CALI FURNIA
y COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Js,
John R. Stearns being duly sworn,
deposes and u)a: r havf - furnwuun ' mtainal in this report is the result of
complete and e3refull) co ueteda and is L(s:, m best I,( his knuwledge true
and foRKf in dI respect - / { I
SUBSCRIBED and swore set+ tl",_, 9 ,ee stf October t,, 72
Nnfary Public in •nJ for the Counts of Lus Angeles. State of L'ahfornu•
Sly Cum»un ml,esp.t<♦Ave--L-
IR7 ate_
OFFICIAL SEAL
z
"-'SAINDRA-K. CONNOR
NOTARY PUBLIC•CALIFOrINIA
PR;:,C1111.L Cf FICF It,
1
LOS ANGELLS CUUUtY
Orin ErOlres August 224, 1976
Page 1 of 14
REPORT NO, 59116
OUR JOB NO. 5 116
YOUR P.O. NO. 16174 _
CONTRACT
DATE September 25, 1
}
C
DEPARTMENT Research
DEPr. .%IGR. '' I
John StteatnS
ITSI ENGINEER
Fred Hueneberg
rl SI wlVNESS N/A
_ N/A
IWAS QAR VERIFIf'ArION
W-357
My
Enclosure 1
Pa e 2 of 14aY116
REPOT NO.
PAGE
0
WTL[ LA SON ATO RIts/El SesuNa,Gldom.,
INTRODUCTION
The object of this test program was to determine the sound transmission loss behavior
of five aluminum framed window assemblies constructed by Premiere Aluminum Products.
The tests were conducted on June 23, 1972 through June 28, 1972 plus September 21, 1972.
Windows used were Premiere #356-HSB2 exterior and SR38 interior. Series 1510 was used
for 5/8 inch dual glaze.
SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION SERIES
The test specimens were all operable 71 1/2 inches x 47 3/4 inches dual window
assemblies. Exception, Specimen it was an operable 71 1/2 inches x 47 3/4 inches
single window assembly. All windows were operable. The two windows were combined
as one unit for split frame effect with integral Bulb Vinyl on SR38 sill making contact
with 13SOsill.
Specimens were installed in a test opening specially constructed to fit them and sealed
with heavy mastic material on both sides.
The space adjacent to the test specimens was filled with on isolated, high transmission
loss wall system by Wyle personnel to ensure that sound power transmitted through the
surrounding filler wall would be at least 10 dB less than through the specimen.
TEST METHOD
The test method conforms with the requirements of the American Society of Testing and
Materials as prescribed'in'ASTM E90-70, "Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound
Transmission Loss of Building Partitions."
TEST RESULTS -
The measured transmission loss values are shown plotted and tabulated, along with the
appropriate STC_class in Figures 1 through 7, the figure numbers corresponding with the
specimen numbers affixed by Premiere Aluminum Products. The STC classification, as
determined by ASTM Procedure Number E413-70T, provides a single -figure rating that
can be used for comparing partitions for general building design purposes.
Enclosure t
` WvLc LAOONATOMIKS/El4-Wda UI.IOIYN
-- • • rage- Jr UL 14 �.
1 ..aE 1v
The following figures are specified by types of glass used for identification of test.
Figure 1 5SB with standard weather strip
Figure 2 SSB with vinyl weather strip plus DSB with vinyl weather strip
Figure 3 DSB plus 3/16 inch
Figure 4 3/16 inch with 1/4 inch
Figure 5 3/16 inch plus DSB with Polyeurothane strip between frame
heads and top of panels.
Figure 6 SSB plus 3/16 inch
Figure 7 STC 32 5/8 inch dual glazed glass in �510 - frame.
3
r
e
Enclosure 1
FIGURE 7
TRANSMISSION LOSS DATA
PREMIERE ALUMINUM PRODUCTS
October 3, 1972
STC 32
OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES
Page 4 of 14
Report No. 59116
Page No. 1
Enclosure i
Page 5 of 14::V:��;iT/�Tr4t zK�rJ11
IVE8TBItN
BLECTRO - ACOUSTIC
LA IIOItAT0 tY°,.;tiNC.
�'•
:,..,,.�...
•
I7lt SIXTEENTH STREET SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404 (213) 870.9268 • '`� 450•1733
•. 33,
---�:
YENEKEASEN Director
71 '•i
I.
' •�
PAUL S. /
.
•t
19 August 1985
REPORT
SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS TEST NO. 85•-168-A
CLIENT: Premier Products
TEST DATE: 29 July 1985
INTRODUCTION
The methods and procedures used for this test conform to the provisions
and requirements of ASTM Procedure E90-81, Standard Method for Laboratory
Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions.
Details of the procedure will be furnished upon request.
DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMEN
. The test specimen was a Premier Products Model 500 Series operable
aluminum sliding glass window assembly. The glazing consisted of 1/4 inch
laminated glass. The weatherstripping used was 1 finger vinyl on the full
perimeter of the fixed panel and Schlegal HF 7520-270 on the full perimeter of
the operable panel. The net outside frame dimensions of the window assembly
were 71•-3/4 inches wide by 47-3/4 inches high. The overall weight of each
panel was 33 lbs. The operable portion of the assembly was opened and closed
5 times prior to the test.
RESULTS OF THE MEASUREMENTS
The sound transmission loss values at 17 one-third octave bands are
tabulated on the attached sheet. The Sound Transmission Class rating
determined in accordance with ASTM E-413 was STC-30.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved: Western Electro-•Acoustic Laboratory, Inc:
ose. ega
aAEmange
RESEARCH CONSULTING __ CALM-8"R'•A-TI'U"N—" I-NSTRUM
ACCREDITED BY THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. NATIONAL VOLUNTARY LABORA
W v 1:'a�rJ ACCREDITATION PROGRAM FOR SELECTED TEST METHODS FOR ACOUSTICS.
•
• Y i. Y.
miclosure 1 Page 6 of 14 i
WESTERN ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC LABORATORY '.,.;.."
NC .
Repor I;No. 85--168 -A
..70
J
w
H 50
U
W
a
Z
F-+ 40
0
0 30
H
H
Z 20
Q
1/3 OCT BND CN
TL In dB
9SX Uncertalnt
1/3 OCT BND CN
TL' I n dB
9SR Uncertaint
Kvlq A(
VUU AC
I
^- - - LImILIng STC Contour
Measured Data
Enclosure 1 Page 7 of 14 '�:•`�'?;'•`•.
WESTERN BLBCTRO - ACOUSTIC LABOR-ATOt�Y';
1711 SIXTEENTH STREET SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404 (213) 870.9268 •
PAUL S. VENENLASEN / Director
19 August 1985
REPORT
SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS TEST NO. 85-174
CLIENT: Premier Products
TEST DATE: 30 July 1985
INTRODUCTION
;r45`0.1733
•• I�f'1,`�I' 4
The methods and procedures used for this test conform to the provisions
and requirements of ASTM Procedure E90-81, Standard Method for Laboratory
Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions.
Details of the procedure will be furnished upon request.
DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMEN
The test specimen was a Premier Products Model 550 Series operable
aluminum sliding glass window assembly. Dual glazing was used which consistedl•
of 3/32 inch glass, 5/16 inch airspace, and 3/32 inch glass. The
weatherstripping used was 1 finger vinyl on the full perimeter of the fixed
panel and Schlegal HF 8422-270 on the full perimeter of the operable panel.
The net outside frame dimensions of the window assembly were 71--3/4 inches
wide by 47-3/4 inches high. The overall weight of each panel was 38 lbs. The
operable portion of the assembly was opened and closed 5 times prior to the
test.
RESULTS OF THE MEASUREMENTS
The sound transmission loss values at 17 one-third octave bands are
tabulated on the attached sheet. The Sound Transmission Class rating
determined in accordance with ASTM E-413 was STC-27.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved: Western Electro-Acoustic Laboratory,
0
ary E. pange
4t
I
A,
Inca.;,` ,
' RESEARCHnn _.
CONSULIIN_G__ _ CALIBRA_TLO_K .._.. I.NS.TR.UMEN
ACCREDITED BY THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, NATIONAL VOLUNTARY LABORATORY
ACCREDITATION PROGRAM FOR SELECTED TEST METHODS FOR ACOUSTICS, .. ;::: C
y�
rvciusun i page d bi, 14;1,.'S/1`I..'
WESTERN ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC LABORATORY,
Report No. 85-174 o-s
.70
60
w
H 50
U
w
a
Z
H 40
0
w
0 38
H
N
H
E
Z 20
a
go
14
i I r _ J _T-i-t-rl-i-r-j
- - - Llmltine STC Contour
Measured Data
i
III1!
ll 11
12s 250 b00 1080 20M 4M
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ
:I
4
1/3 OCT BND CNTR FREQ
125
168
200
250
315
400
500
630
801
TL In dB
21
22
22
21
23
22
23
25
21
95% Uncortaint in dB
2.24
1.34
1.27
0.98
0.92
0.72
0.57
0.46
0.4i
1/3 OCT BND CNTR FREQ
1008
12S0
1680
2000
2500
3150
4000
6008
STC
TL in'dB
27
28
29
31
'33
32
29
33
2i
95R UncertaintyIn dB
0.39
0.48
0.28
0.39
0.35
8.58
0.62
0.62.
if -
Specimen
Area: 23.79 sq.ft.
Temperature: 72 dee. F _
Relative Humidity: 60 X
Test Date, 30 July 1986
ACCREDITEW Y/ lSW1J TIBY THE NATIONAL BUREAU ACCREDITATION PROGRAM FOR SELECTED TEST EST METHODS FOR TIONAL VOLUNTARY LABORATORY
FOR ACOUSTICS.
::• : i
Enclosure 1
I t
a /
WLE LABORATORIES/El Segundo. California .322.1763.67BA251 . TWX910.3486699. Cable WYLAB
( Premiere Aluminum Products, Inc. _l
18233 S. Hoover
Gardena, California 90247
SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS TEST
ON
ALUMINUM SLIDING GLASS DOORS
FOR
PREMIERE ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC.
December 18, 1972
STATE OF CALWORNIA as
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Louis C. Sutherland , being duly sworn,
deposes end sa )'s: ih+I llte information contained ,n this report is the (tsull of
eompiete and cateytully conducted teats and is it) file hest of his knowledge true
and eofrget �n.a^l`perts. ',�:: „r!•i
eel
(Man tiger, a itclnia Kesecrctl Stal
j9 ,
$II NSC'1 114:n and fao n it, be Ire me Ihis_tlp• of December 72t I__
Nino) Public m and for Itte ('uunq of 1 ru Angeles. Sl+te of(LCallt]fu[rrnu.
M)•JAL '-CLL
(:nmml..,un ell•ires,Jwu C,n1 �� 1Y
............................................
ammnnumti.nminnn.......w nnn. n.........mnuunnum.nn....n.,. e......
CONNOR
t�
W-357 t..;�l<,;i f :.: -:.:t Cl'IC( Ill
... n.......beL r _e.Au-u•t 9A In'If.
Page 9 of 14
REPORT NO. 59135
OUR JOB NO.
YOUR P. O. NO.
CONTRACT _
DATE December 18, 1972 1
DEPARTMENT Research
DEFT-MGR.
Louis C. Sut
THS'r I:NGINL•/'�
1'1 S1' W1 I'NESS
N/A
N/A
UC'AS OAR VER11:11.-MION
'N/A — --
01 IA I Y ( ON1 RUI
4.1
/I
e
Enclosure
!.
• IT
WVL[ LAMORATOR I[S/EI S*`undo, C611fma
INTRODUCTION
Page LOlb�Z
REPORT NO.
;AGE NO 2
The object of this test program was to determine the sound transmission loss behavior of
three aluminum sliding glass door assemblies for Premiere Aluminum Products by Wyle
personnel. The tests were conducted on November 30, December 4, 6, and 13, 1972 by
members of the Research Staff of Wyle Laboratories, 'El Segundo, California.
SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
The test specimens were all operable 8 ft, x 6 ft. 9 inches aluminum sliding glass door
assemblies. Specimens were installed in a test opening specially constructed to fit them
and sealed with heavy mastic material on one side.
The space adjacent to the test specimens was filled with on isolated, high transmission loss
wall system by Wyle personnel to ensure that sound power transmitted through the surround-
ing filler wall would be at least 10 dB less than through the specimen.
TEST METHOD
{ The test method conforms with the requirements of the American Society of Testing and
Materials as prescribed in ASTM E90-70, "Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound
Transmission Loss• of Building Partitions. "
TEST RESULTS
The measured transmission loss values are shown plotted and tabulated along with the
appropriate STC class in Figures 1 through 4 the figure numbers corresponding with the
specimen numbers affixed by Premiere Aluminum Products. The STC classification, as
determined by ASTM Procedure Number E413-70T, provides a single -figure rating that
can be used for -comparing partitions for general building design purposes.
The following figures are specified by types and grade for identification of test -
Figure 1 - 5/8 inch dual glazed safety glass, door SGD-A2 (3/16" temp - 1/4" airspace -
3/16 " temp).
Figure 2 - DS/DS laminated regular safety glass, door SGD-A2.
Figure 3 - DS/DS laminated acoustic safety glass, door SGD-A2.
Figure 4 - 3/16 heavy sheet tempered glass, door SGD-A2.
N
v
�U
d
,c
40
9
3.0
.N
E
c" 20
0
f-
10
0
Enclosure 1
PZge' 11'ot'`14
Report No. 59135
FIGURE
Page No. 3
l
TRANSMISSION L�SS DATA*
PREMIERE ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC.
November 30, 1972
OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES - Hz.
,t
5/8 inch Dual Glazed, Door SGD-A2
(3/16" temp. - 1/4"air space - 3/16" temp.)
Frequency TL
Hz dB
125
28
160
30
200
26
250
28
315
28
400
28
500
31
630
32
800
31
1000
30
1250
30
1600
33
2000
33
2500
33
3150
34
4000
36
STC 32
C
a
w
0
•` 40
V
-j
o. 30
E
0 20
1=
10
Enclosure 1
Page 12 of 14 - -
Report No. 59135
Page No. 6
FIGURE 4
TRANSMISSION LOSS DATA`
PREMIERE ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC.
December 13, 1972
OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES
0 1 t 1 I t I I Y 1 I y I
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES - Hx.
3/16 Heavy Sheet Tempered Glass, Door SGD-A2
Frequency TL
Hz dB
125
24
160
23
200
23
250
28
315
28
400
27
500
29
630
30
800
30
1000
30
1250
30
1600
30
2000
31
2500
30
3150
31
4000
34
STC 30
IYBSTERN
• (9
Enclosure 1
BLBCTKO -ACOUSTIC
•"1'b
Page 13 of
is •: ;. 7.
,Al I
1711 SIXTEENTH STREET SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 904 (213) 870.9268 450.1733
J•:`•• ';ice
PAUL S. VENEKLASEN / Director :•.,(
REPORT
SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS TEST NO. 85-195
28 August 1985
CLIENT: PREMIER PRODUCTS, INC.
TEST DATE: 23 August 1985
INTRODUCTION
The methods and procedures used for this test conform to the provisions'
and requirements of ASTM Procedure E90-81, Standard Method for Laboratory
Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions.
Details of the procedure will be furnished upon request.
DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMEN
The test specimen was a Premier Products, Inc. Model 400 operable
. aluminum glass door assembly. The glazing consisted of 5/8 inch dual glazed('
panels of 3/16 inch tempered glass, 1/4 inch airspace, and 3/16 inch tempered
glass. The weatherstripping used was a Schlegal HF 7520-270 mohair with fin
at the lock jamb stile and interlock stile of -the operable panel, the
interlock stile of the fixed panel, and at the head and -sill of the frame at
the operable panel. A one finger vinyl seal was used at the jamb stile of the
fixed panel and at the head and sill of the frame at the fixed panel. The
weights of the fixed and operable panels were 96 pounds and 108 pounds
respectively. The net outside frame dimensions of the door assembly were 95
inches wide by 80-3/4 inches high. The operable portion of the assembly was
opened and closed 5 times prior to the test.
RESULTS OF THE MEASUREMENTS
The sound transmission loss values at 17 one-third octave bands are
tabulated on the attached sheet. The Sound Transmission Class rating
determined in accordance with ASTM E-413 was STC-27.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved: Western Electro=Acoustic Laboratory, Inc.
ose. ega
RESEARCH CONSULTING CALIBRATION I'N•STRUM'EN'
• M�n�n n ACCREDITED BY THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, NATIONAL VOLUNTARY LABORATORY,
W v (:al�I1J ACCREDITATION PROGRAM FOR SELECTED TEST METHODS FOR ACOUSTICS, t
A T7 0_,
c•
r
• tYd ..
Page 14 of 14t�,•
WESTERN
ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC LABORATORY;' ` INC•,''•''
Report No. 85-195
Y�
70
Limiting STC Contour
Measured Data
•
60
Z
H 40
0
w
0 30 —
H
H /
Z 20
a /
a /
0 125 290 588 1000 2080 4008
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ
1/3 OCT BND CNTR FREQ
125
i6el
2661
250
315
400
500
630
SE
TL In dB
28
241221
20
19
20
23
24
95Y. Uncertainty to dB
1.84
0.97
0.SS
0.78
0.98
0.57
0:35
0.21'
0.4
1/3 OCT BND CNTR FREQ
1000
12S0
1600.2000
2500
3150
40001SO001
Sl
TL in d6
261
281
30
31
32
29,
301
30
9S% Uncertainty In dB
0.43
0.24
0.46
0.36
0.26
0.34
0.32
0.47
., 44
Specimen Area: 53.27 sq.ft°
Temperature: 72 deg. F
Relative Humidity: 57 X
-- - Test Dote: 23 August- -1985- ---
ACCREDITED BY THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, NATIONAL VOLUNTARY LABORATORY
ACCREDITATION PROGRAM FOR SELECTED TEST METHODS FOR ACOUSTICS.
_'•swa
APPENDIX I I
NOISE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
A description of the character of a particular noise requires the
following:
1. amplitude and amplitude variation of the acoustics wave,
2. frequency (pitch) content of the wave motion, and
3, duration of the noise.
The scale of measurement which is most useful in community noise
measurement is the A -weighted sound pressure level, commonly called
the A -level or dB(A). It is measured in decibels to provide a scale
with the range and characteristics most consistent with that of
people's hearing ability.
A -Weighted Sound Level
To establish the A -weighted sound level, the acoustics signal is
detected by the microphone and then filtered (heavily weighting
those portions of the noise which are most annoying to individuals).
This weighting of sound energy corresponds approximately to the relative
annoyance to human senses of noise experienced at various frequencies.
The A -weighted sound pressure levels of a few typical sources of noise
experienced by people within the general vicinity of the subject
project are indicated in Figure I-1.
The A -weighted sound level of traffic noise and other long-term noise
producing activities within and around the community varies considerably
with time. Measurements of this varying level are accomplished by
recording the values of the noise for a specified period of time.
An analysis of these recordings yields the A -level values for noise
which are useful in assessing the potential annoyance of the disturbance.
For purposes of this study, the following values have been used:
Leo - The near minimum A -level. 90% of the -time, the A -level is
greater than this value.
Lso - The central tendency of A -level. This value is exceeded 50%
of the time during the measurement period.
Lio - The near maximum A -level. This value is a measure of the long-
term annoyance of the noise. 10% of the time, the A-level.is
greater than this value.
Leq - The energy equivalent level is representative of the long-term
annoyance potential of the noise.
Readings of these measures are recorded to provide representative
samples of the noise during the time period being examined (i.e.,
peak traffic period, morning, afternoon, night, etc.,).
Appendix I, Continued
Page Two
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
It is recognized that a given level of noise may be more or less
tolerable depending on the duration of exposure experienced by an
individual. There are numerous measures of noise exposure which
consider not only the A -level variation of noise but also the duration
of the disturbance. The State Department of Aeronautics and the
California Commission on Housing and Community Development have
adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). This measure
considers the weighted average noise levels for the evening hours
(7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and increases the levels by 5 dB, and
increases the late evening and morning hours' noise levels (10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m.) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with
these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value.
Figure I-2 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations.
Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposures- CNEL
Figure I-3 indicates the CNEL considered acceptable for various
land use categories. In general, exterior noise exposures at resi-
dential locations should not exceed a CNEL of 65 dB.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated a recommended
policy for exterior noise exposures which, in effect, suggest that
a CNEL which is no greater than 55 dB should be permitted within
exterior living spaces. However, they emphasize that this level of
exposure may not be economically feasible or, in many cases, may
not be a practical level to achieve.
Acceptable Interior Noise Exposures CNEL
California's Noise Insulation Standards were officially adopted by
the California Commission on Housing and Community Development in
1974. The regulations became effective on August-22, 1974. The
ruling states that "interior community noise equivalent level (CNEL)
attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an,annual CNEL-
of 45 dB in any habitable room". Additionally, the Commission
specified that residential buildings or structures to be located
within exterior community noise equivalent level contours of 60 dB
or greater of an existing or adopted freeway, expressway, parkway,
major street, thoroughfare, railroad, rapid transit line, or industrial
noise source shall require an acoustical analysis showing that the
building has been designed to limit intruding noise to the level
prescribed (interior CNEL of 45 dB).
NOISE SOURCE
A-welghted sound LOVel dB(A) NOISE SOURCE
—130— THRESHOLD OF PAIN
SMALL AIRCRAFT OVERHEAD
RIVETINGMACHINE 30 TO 40 FEET
TRAIN PASSING 50 FEET
AUTOMOBILE HORN 59 FEET AWAY
NOISY STENOGRAPHIC ROOM
AVERAGE CONVERSATION, 3 FEET
NOISY OFFICE
NOISY RESIDENCE, INTERIOR
QUIET OFFICE
VOICE - VERY SOFT WHISPER, 3 FEET
OUTDOOR IN RURAL AREA
THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY
Figure I-1. : Representative Noise Sources and Sound Levels
I
CNEL
oft
QUALITATIVE Ldn
DESCRIPTION d6 OUTDOOR LOCATION
CITY NOISE
(DOWNTOWN M
LETROPOLIS)
�VERY NOI
i
<OISY UR
i
-1<U-1 BAN
i
<' BURBAN
< QUIET
SUBURBAN
3/4 MILE FROM TOUCH 001-IN AT
MAJOR AIRPORT
DOWNTOWN WITH SOME CON-
STRUCTION ACTIVITY
RESIDENTIAL LOCATION
HOUSING ON MAJOR AVENUE
8 MILES FROM TOUCH DOI•IN AT
MAJOR AIRPORT
a5 MILES FROM TAKEOFF AT
SHALL AIRPORT
RESIDENTIAL AREA NEAR
SECONDARY STREET
ESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN AREA
IELD ON FARM IH RURAL AREA
AWAY FROM HIGHWAYS
SOURCE: In part taken from, "Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise...", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 550/9-74-004,
I•larch 1974.
Figure I-2. Outdoor Noise Exposures at Various Locations
j
APPENDIX II
Noise Measurement Equipment and Listing of the Noise Measurements
Noise measurements were obtained by use of precision sound level
meters (noise monitors, per American National Standard ANSI SI.4-
1971). It is hereby certified that the information contained in
the data listing is the result of completely and carefully con-
ducted measurements and is, to the best of the undersigned's
knowledge, true and correct in all respe.cts.
John J. Van Houten, P.E.
Consulting Engineer in Acoustics
Y � �
TABLE II-1
Noise Measurement Equipment
The following items of equipment were used to obtain the noise
measurements:
1. A -Weighted Noise Level Analysis
Portable Noise Monitor, BBN Type 614, Serial•Number 773504
Portable Noise Monitor, BBN Type 614, Serial Number 773506
2. Acoustic Calibration
Acoustic Calibrator, GR Type 1567 (114 dB @ 1000 Hz), SIN 23533
I
TableIII-2. Summary of 24-Hour Noise Measurements Obtained
1 at Model Home, Plan 2A, Sea Island
Measurement date: April 28-29, 1987
TIME
EXTERIOR
INTERIOR
NOISE
----------
SOUND LEVEL,
SOUND LEVEL,
REDUCTION
FROM TO
---- ---
dB(A)
-----
dB(A)
-----
dB(A)
-----
07:00-08:00
66.5
38.8
27.7
08:00-09:00
67.3
39.9
27.4
09:00-10:00
66.1
38.6
27.5
10:00-11:00
66.7
38.6
28.1
11:00-12:00
66.7
39.3
27.4
12:00-13:00
66.3
38.4
27.9
13:00-14:00
66.5
39.5
27.0
14:00-15:00
66.5
39.0
27.5
15:00-16:00
66.5
38.8
27.7
16:00-17:00
66.3
38.4
27.9
17:00-18:00
66.5
38.6
27.9
18:00-19:00
66.1
38.4
27.7
19:00-20:00
65.0
37.5
27.5
20:00-21:00
63.5
36.1
27.4
21:00-22:00
62.8
35.6
27.2
22:00-23:00
61.6
34.5
27.1
23:00-00:00
59.6
33.3
26.3
00:00-01:00
57.7
32.6
25.1
01:00-02:00
54.0
30.5
23.5
02:00-03:00
.52.6
30.0
22.6
03:00-04:00
48.7
29.6
19.1
04:00-05:00
50.8
29.8
21.0
05:00-06:00
57.7
32.0
25.7
06:00-07:00
----------
62.4
-----
35.0
-----
27.4
-----
COMMUNITY NOISE
EQUIVALENT• LEVEL
• •CNEL:
67.5 dB
40.8 dB
AVERAGE NOISE
REDUCTION:
26.7 dB
. s.•vn :. 4 a
99
90
50
L10
L1
L MAX
41 4a
51. 6I.
77. 84.0
1100.00
17
000
064.5
H
1039.28
084.0
M
1 039.47
17
070
094.6
XF
1039.15
17
070
<00.0
F
1039.12
072.0
M
1039.13
17
070
075.1
XF
1039.11
17
070
<00.0
F
1028.31
073.5
A
— — _
d6
TIME
THRESHOLD
MODE:
First digit is time of printout.
0 = AVL 1 = SEL
Second digit is analysis period.
1 = 10 sec. 5 = 10 hours
2 = 1 min. 6 = 24 hours
3 = 10 min. 7 = threshold
4 = 1 hour triggered
L% LEVELS
HOURLY AVERAGE LEVEL
(LEO : 64.5 DB(A))
MAX. NOISE LEVEL
(MNL: 84.0)
SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL
(SEL: 94.6)
AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL
(AVL)
A -WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL I
(73.5)
FIGURE II-1. Typical Printout and Coding of the BBN Instruments
Model 614 Noise Monitor
1-991 LSd LZO1 Lto 11 L1 1 Lmax
5F.,. 59.
65.
69. 72.
75.0 %
1600.01
04
000
066.5 F
160NO0
04
000
066.5 H
56. 59.
65.
69. 73.
78.0 %
1 5ONO 1
04
0"0
066.5 F
1 500pOO
04
000
066.5 H
55. 59.
65.
69. 73.
7&0 `K
1400.01
04
OUO
066.5 F
1400.00
04
OOO
06G5 H
55. 58.
64.
69. 71
89.0 %
1 300601
04
U(;O
066.7 F
1300.00
04
OUO
066.7 H
I:' 1 5.53 ')� OU u, 00`110 H
57. 6a
65.
72. 71 710%
121
5.35
04
000
067.8 F
1215.32
04
000
067.6 H
63.
65.
67.
71. 73.
73.0 %
1215.22
04
000
068.4 F
63.
64.
65.
66. 67.
67.0 l
1215.13
04
000
065.6 F
1215.12
04
000
064.6 H
1215,05
04
000
000,OXF
121 5.00 00 000 00''.0 H
0005.22
1 1 4.0
A
0005.20
1 1 4.0
A
0005.17
112.6
A
000131
114.1
A
000130
1 1 4.0
A
Time
I Model
Thy.
I dB
Cap**
Threshold setting: WA . dB
Noise Survey
PROJECT: THE Lusk Commr4%f
MEASUREMENT POSITION: BAI-corJY
MODEL "DME, I, R,J 2A
DATE: Aoa=L- .0.8 -aq, 198t
TIME: Fromlz:l5, V.28 To 13 50, 4/.aq
BBN NOISE MONITOR, 614
Serial
Number: ��35oH
CALIBRATION
❑ B&K
4230 )1,GR 1567 ❑ B&K 4220
Serial
Number:
*Mode
First
digit is time of printout.
(%0 =
AVL ❑ 1 = SEL
Second
digit is analysis period.
❑ 1 =
❑ 2 =
❑ 3 =
K4 =
10 sec. ❑ 5 = 10 hours
1 min. ' 116 = 24 hours
10 min. ❑ 7 = threshold
1 hour triggered.
"Caption
Function
*H
Hourly Average Level (Leq)
❑ C
CNEL
❑ A
❑ d
A -weighted sound level
Day -Night Average Level (Ldn)
❑ M
❑ XF
® F
Max. Noise Level (MNL)
Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
Average Sound Level (AVL)
9 %
L% Levels
ATMOSPHERIC CONDITION
Time observed: n! K
Wind direction: Wind vel: _
Temp: Rel. Humidity:
Data Record �_ of 2
OPERATOR(S): M2KF
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES sheet 1 of 2
J
I L99
II L90+
L550I
L10
I L1
I Lmax
I
I L99I L901
'-1 352.26
L50I
L10 I
L1 I Amax
1 1 3.8
I
A
1
1:52.22
1.13.8
A
lirl Etl.
42.
53. 62. 66.0%
17,52.1
1 13.
A
0500.01
04
UOG G 5 & 8
F
1 >52.19
1 1 3.6
A
050().00
04
000 050.8
H
1 352.17
1 13.4
A
39. 40.
42
4& 60. 69.0%
040 01
04
000 J4&7
F
0400.00
0/1
000 04S.7
H
40. 4E.
49.
55. 62. 69.0
0300.01
04
300 052.6
F
5 5. 50
65.
69. 74.
79.0%
0300.00
04
000 052.6
H
1 35CL03
04
000
066.7
F
4C'. 41.
49.
58. 63. 70.0 %
0200.01
04
000 054.0
F
9200.0G
04
000 054.0
H
41. 43.
52.
61. 66. 77.0%
O100.U1
04
000 057.7
F
1349.58
04
000
066.7
H
0100.00
04
000 057.7
H
1349.57
04
000
066.7
H
49. 49.
57.
63. 66. 72.0 %
00OC403
04
000 059.6
F
0000.02
04
000 067.3d
5(. 59.
64.
69. 72. 76.0%
0')0GO1
04
000 068.4C
1 300.01
04
000
066.3
F
0000.00
04
000 059.6
H
l30aOO
04
000
066.3
H
';a 54.
60.
64. 6& 73.0%
55. 59.
65.
69. 74. 79.0%
2300.01
04
000 061.E
F
1200.01
04
000
066.7
F
2300.00
04
000 061.6
H
1200.00
04
000
066*7
H
53. 55.
61.
65. 70. 75.0 %
56. 5P.
64.
69. 74. 83.0
%
2200.01
04
000 062.8
F
1100.01
04
000
066.7
F
2200.00
04
000 062.8
H
1100.00
04
000
066.7
H
54. 56,
61.
66. 70. 79.0 %
56. 52.
65.
69. 72. 76.0
%
2100.01
04
000 063.5
F
1000.01
04
000
066.1
F
2100.00
04
000 063.5
H
1000.00
04
000
066.1
H
54. 57.
63. 68. 73. 76.0%
55. 59.
66.
69. 71 83.0%
2000.01
04
000 065.0
F
0900.01
04
000.
067.3
F
2000.00
04
000 065.0
H
0900.00
04
000
067.3
H
55. 59. 65. 68. 72. 78.0%
49. 55.
65.
69. 73. 77.0%
1900.01
04
000 066.1
F
0800.01
04
000
066.5
F
1900.00
04
000 066.1
H
0800.00
04
000
066.5
H
55. 59. 65. 69. 72. -76.0%
45. 49.
59.
66. 69.- 75.0%
1800.01
04
000 066.5
F
0700.01
04
000
062*4
F
1800.00
04
000 066.5
H
0700.00
04
000
062.4
H
5& 59. 65. 69. 71. 74.0 %
40. 41.
50.
6It 66. 76.0
%
1700.01
04
000 066.3
F
0600.01
04
000
057.7
F
1700.00
04
000 0'6&3
H
0600.00
04
000
057.7
H
Time Mode
Thr. . d6 fCap.
Time
Mode
I Thr.
dB
Cap.
_
Data Record
�_
of
J. J. VAN HOUTEN &
ASSOCIATES`
Sheet 2 of 2,
QUALITY
ORIGINAL (S)
I
1 1-991
LSK4'MI
t_,O
I t.t
It.*r�l
J04
Jh •!.. 4..� •
L J v .A V 1
V 4
V it V J J 1. _•
V .".J
J J 4.
ri
1 Gt..J 1
J 4
4
f
J 4
J u J J .J .•F
4 J. �+ .Y 4 �.J n•
31. i
r.
4 I. 44. ..L.0 .
1 70L.'J1
J4
.lu.; u36.4
r
1 70C400
6ucJ
U3c.'
r
3 3.
3 7.
4 1. 4 i. 4 LI °
•
1 0�U,I
u4
u-1J J..Lb
t
1 �0u0 l!
u4
u 0 0 JJL.i
n
1. 3 z.
' -1.
41. 4 E. 5 41'...
15)G3.i1
34
Ju 339.6
Y
1 50C6U-U
J4
u6u -J3�j.6
r,
3 4 J b
J h.
1. 1. 7 6c; m
140::o1
04
J lu u35.5
F
14uC.00
U4
0 U U" u3?.5
n
3 I. 3.
36.
4 1. 4 7. 6 1.0 t
1300.01
04
J 0 3 039.0
F
1 300.00
•)4
0. 0 339.0
H
122C.54
04
0Cj0 000.0
H
42. 42.
5&
64. 64. 64.0 a
1220.00
")4
)C0 061.3
F
1219.39
C4
0 059.0
H
1 21 9.55
04
000 000.0 XF
1219.50
00
000 UC0.0
H
0001.09
1 1 4.1
A
0001107
1 1 4.1
A
0001.05
1 1 /'.1
A
0u01.03
1 13.8
A
Norse Survey
PROJECT: THe L95,K COMOAr4Y
MEASUREMENT POSITION: MAs-r -2 Rj OmooMA
Moos L_ ?iA-N2A
DATE: A PRSL 19 8�
TIME: From L� J:O{'� /2d To 13:49,yia9
BBN NOISE MONITOR, 614
Serial Number: 143506
CALIBRATION
❑ B&K 4230 pf-GR 1567 ❑ B&K 4220
Serial Number: .23533
First digit is time of printout.
K0 = AVL ❑ 1 = SEL
Second digit is analysis period.
❑ 1 = 10 sec. ❑ 5 = 10 hours
❑ 2 = 1 min. ❑ 6 = 24 hours
❑ 3 = 10 min. ❑ 7 = threshold
CA4 = 1 hour triggered.
'aption Function
§qH Hourly Average Level (Leq)
❑ C CNEL
❑ A • A -weighted sound level
❑ d Day -Night Average Level (Ldn)
❑ M Max. Noise Level (MNL)
❑ XF Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
&F Average Sound Level (AVL)
K% L% Levels
ATMOSPHERIC CONDITION
Time observed: MR
Wind direction: Wind vel: _
Temp: Rel. Humidity:
TIm. I Mod4l Thr. I de Cap** Data Record 2- of L
Threshold setting: KI/�r_ d6
OPERATOR(S): M3ac� Lt:E
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES sheet I of 27
►-991 1-901 L-5011.1011 L1 I Lmax
1. J h J •
. 1• �
• J i•J n
i N J I•
J I•
I•
1. } 1.V
•
v n U U.J V
1 •1
J .J V
U i ••
L. �'. Ju Ju
J::• 4b
• J.v
•.
070 .' 1
u f I G uE
U+
J V-
L i. �% J N
J 4• .l
.• L V
-
G r' l UJ U
J 4
J U
l bU
i
G i J uU U
J 4
V V V
J L J•..
11
r;
L t.l. L ''.1.
•
� • )
h 4
Ciuu.Jl
J
uvv
uLi.6
F
G4Ci.:
4
JI.V
64:�.6
n
2 & 29.
29.
3... %
J. 4ll.:I
!G
03G0.0 1
U4
JuJ
:,3a.)
F
0300.00
04
:)63
u3C.0
H
2P. 29•
29.
3;. 35.
42.0
�.
0200.01
U"4
UGu
030.5
F
0200.00
G4
000
030.5
H
2u 29.
3a
34. 4U
51.0`s
G 1 Li.LJ 1
34
JUV
Uj3LZ
F
010u00
u4
u0u
632.6
H
29. 29.
31.
35. 35.
5C60
K
000G.03
74
(; J
u33.�
F
0 0 G M 2
J4
:JC1J
U39.va
0000601
04
uuJ
041.0C
0000.0E
04
OGG
633.3
h
29. 30.
33.
36o 4
1. 4Ct'0
5.
23G(.L01
J4
u6u
034.5
F
2300.00
04
JCJu
034.5
H
30. 31.
33.
37. 44. 48.0
2200.01
u4
Juu
u35.6
F
2200.00
u4
000
035.E
h
3C. 3 1.
34.
3i3. 4.4. 5 2. 0 1
2100.01
J4
JuJ
G36.1
F
2.100.u0
04
0J0
036.1
H
Time
Mode
I Thr.
dB
Cap.
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES
L99I L90+ L501 1-10 I Li i Amax
is
.}i
A
I1
i. 2.3 7 l
i .Is A
1 JJ9177 I
I A
.c
1352.32 1
1 3.6 A
J 1. 3 3.
3 {r .
4 1. 4 E6
2.6 h
134S.4
u4
JUJ
li3J0 F
1349.3?
u4
JGO
G39.3 h
31. 33.
36.
4 1. 45. 52.0
1 300.0 i
u4
JGu
:J3&4-F
13EG0G
34
E00
033.4 h
31. 3x
3 7.
41. 4[-. 55.0
1 00.0 1
:04
uuE
039.3 FF
1200.00
u4
6 u 0
u39.3 H
31- 37.
36.
41. 46. 54.0 %
1 100601
04
JOJ
632.6 F
1 100.00
64
000
03u6 H
31. 33•
37.
41. 45.
5U.0 A%
1 OG C..J 1
34
UiJG
03✓=i.6 F
1000.0,u
04
JCi0
G38.6 H
I Time I Model Thr. I dB 1 Cap.
Data Record Z of :-
Sheet Z of Z
APPENDIX III
1 Sound Absorption Characteristics of Master Bedroom, Plan
3A
2 Exterior CNEL Due to Traffic On Jamboree Road
3 Sound Transmission Loss Characteristics of the Partition
(Wall and STC 32 Sliding Glass Door) That Separates In—
terior and Exterior Spaces
4 Interior CNEL of Master Bedroom, Plan 3A with STC 32
Window and STC 32 Sliding Glass Door
5 Sound Absorption Characteristics of the Living Room,
Plan 3A
6 Sound Transmission Loss Characteristics of the Partition
(Wall and STC 32 Window and STC 32 Sliding Glass Door)
That Separates Interior and Exterior Spaces
7 Interior CNEL of the Living Room of Plan 3A with STC 32
Window and STC 32 Sliding Glass Door
Y
TABLE 1. COMPUTATION OF THE ROOMIABSORPTION FROM COEFFICIENTS
LUSK CO. J PROJECT NO.: 1668-86
MASTER BEDROOM, PLAN 3A JAN. 12, 1987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface
__Type_ Description
6 CARPET- 5/16 in. PILE AND FOAM
17 1/2 in. GYPSUM BOARD NAILED TO 2X41S9 16 in. O.C., PAINTED
17 1/2 in. GYPSUM BOARD NAILED TO 2X41S, 16 in. O.C., PAINTED
16 24 oz., OPENABLE WINDOWS (IN CLOSED CONDITION)
35 PADDED FURNITURE
Surface Type
6
17
17
16
35
Surface No. Surface Type Area
1
6
265
2
17
265
3
17
478
4
16 -
66
5
35
50
Sum -Area x Absorption:
Ave. Absorp. Coeff.:
Absorption
Coefficients at Octave Frequencies
125 250 500 1000 2000 4000
0.05
0.15
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.14
0.35
0.55
0.72
0.70
0.65
Area X Absorption at Octave Frequencies
125
2_
_,00
1000
2000
4000
13
40
80
106
133
159
27
21
13
8
8
8
48
38
24
14
14
14
7
3
3
2
2
2
7
18
28
36
35
33
101
120
147
166
192
216
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.19
Reverberation Times: 1.03 0.86 0.71 0.62 0.54 - 0.48
Room Volume: 2,116 Cubic Feet
TABLE 2. A -WEIGHTED AND ADJUSTED SOUND LEVELS OF THE SOURCE l
LUSK CO. i PROJECT NO.: 1668-86
EXTERIOR CNEL DUE TO TRAFFIC JAN. 122 1987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ARTERIAL NOISE
Frequency
Sound
Weighting
A-Wtd. A
(Hz)
Levels
Factors
Levels
---------
50
--------
93.5
--------
-30.2
-------- --
63.3
63
94.6
-26.2
68.4
80
95.1
-22.5
72.6
100
96.1
-19.1
77.0
125
96.7
-16.1
80.6
160
96.1
-13.4
82.7
200
96.1
-10.9
85.2
250
95.6
-8.6
87.0
315
94.6
-6.6
88.0
400
93.6
-4.8
88.8
500
92.6
-3.2
89.4
630
91.7
-1.9
89.8
800
91.4
-0.8
90.6
10000
90.8
0.0
90.8
11250
89.8
o.6
90.4
1,600
88.1
1.0
89.1
21000
86.8
1.2
88.0
2,500
84.1
1.3
85.4
31150
81.1
1.2
82.3
4,000
78.4
1.0
79.4
51000
75.1
0.5
75.6
6,300
72.1
-0.1
72.0
8,000
69.8
-1.1
68.7
101000
66.6
-2.5
64.1
A -Weighted Sound Levels: 100.0 dB(A)
djust- Adjusted Adjusted
ment Levels A -Levels
-27.0 66.5 36.3
-27.0 67.6 41.4
-27.0 68.1 45.6
-27.0 69.1 50.0
-27.0 69.7 53.6
-27.0 69.1 55.7
-27.0 69.1 58.2
-27.0 68.6 60.0
-27.0 67.6 61.0
-27.9 66.6 61.8
-27.0 65.6 62.4
-27.0 64.7 62.8
-27.0 64.4 63.6
-27.0 63.8 63.8
-27.0 62.8 63.4
-27.0 61.1 62.1
-27.0 59.8 61.0
-27.0 57.1 58.4
-27.0 54.1 55.3
-27.0 51.4 52.4
-27.0 48.1 48.6
-27.0 45.1 45.0
-27.0 42.8 41.7
-27.0 39.6 37.1
73.0 dB(A)
73.0 dB(A)
� t
TABLE 3.
COMPOSITE
TRANSMISSION
LOSS OF THE PAIrTITION
SYSTEM
LUSK CO.
)
PROJECT NO.:
1668-86
MASTER BEDROOM, PREMIERE STC 32
WINDOW & GLASS DOOR
JAN.
12, 1987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREQ.jHz
TRANSMISSION LOSS OF
THE ELEMENTS COMPOSITE
TL STC
RESID
--------
---------------
ELEMENT 1
------------------
ELEMENT 2
------------
ELEMENT 3
---
-----
50
---------
25.0
---------
25.0
---------
24.0
24.4
0
0.0
63
26.0
26.0
25.0
25.4
0
0.0
80
37.0
21.0
26.0
27.6
0
0.0
100
25.0
28.0
27.0
26.5
0
0.0
125
25.0
29.0
28.0
27.1
17
0.0
160
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
20
0.0
200
42.0
30.0
26.0
28.2
23
0.0
250
41.0
29.0
28.0
29.6
26
0.0
315
44.0
29.0
28.0
29.6
29
0.0
400
43.0
28.0
28.0
29.4
32
2.6
500
45.0
31.0
31.0
32.4
33
o.6
630
45.0
33.0
32.0
33.6
34
0.4
800
46.0
33.0
31.0
32.8
35
2.2
11000
45.0
34.0
30.0
32.2
36
3.8
11250
46.0
33.0
30.0
32.0
37
5.0
1,600
48.0
33.0
33.0
34.4
37
2.6
21000
50.0
31.0
33.0
33.8
37
3.2
2,500
50.0
32.0
33.0
34.1
37
2.9
31150
50.0
31.0
34.0
34.4
37
2.6
4,000
55.0
33.0
36.0
36.4
37
0.6
5,000
58.0
34.0
37.0
37.4
0
0.0
6,300
62.0
35.0
38.0
38.4
0
0.0
81000
65.0
36.0
39.0
39.4
0
0.0
10,000
67.0
37.0
40.0
40.4
0
0.0
Sound Transmission
Class (STC):
33
Sum
of the
Residuals: 26.6
TABLE 4. OUTSIDE SOURCE TO REVERBERANT ROOM, A -WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS
LUSK CO.
PROJECT
NO.: 1668-86
MASTER BEDROOM,
PREMIERE STC
32 WINDOW
& GLASS DOOR
JAN. 12, 1987
------------------------------------------------------
EXTERIOR
TRANS.
-----------------
ROOM
INTERIOR
FREQ
NOISE
-------
_LOSS_
CORRECTION*
---------
NOISE
--------
50
36
24
5
17
63
41
25
5
21
80
46
28
4
22
100
50
26
4
27
125
54
27
4
30
160
56
30
3
29
200
58
28
3
33
250
60
30
3
34
315
61
30
3
34
400
62
29
3
35
500
62
32
2
32
630
63
34
2
32
800
64
33
2
33
1000
64
32
2
34
1250
63
32
2
33
1600
62
34
2
29
2000
61
34
2
29
2500
58
34
2
26
3150
55
34
1
22
4000
52
36
1
17
5000
49
37
1
12
6300
45
38
2
8
8000
42
39
2
4
10000
37
40
2
0
A -WEIGHTED
SOUND LEVELS:
73 dB(A)
44 dB(A)
*INCLUDES 3 dB REDUCTION FOR WINDOW TO ROOM CENTER CORRECTION
", I. 9e. .
TABLE 5. COMPUTATION OF THE ROOM ABSORPTION FROM COEFFICIENTS 1
LUSK CO. PROJECT NO.: 1668-86
LIVING ROOM, PLAN 3A JAN. 12, 1987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface
__Type_ Description
6 CARPET- 5/16 in. PILE AND FOAM
17 1/2 in. GYPSUM BOARD NAILED TO 2X41S, 16 in. O.C., PAINTED
17 1/2 in. GYPSUM BOARD NAILED TO 2X41S, 16 in. O.C., PAINTED
16 24 oz., OPENABLE WINDOWS (IN CLOSED CONDITION)
35 PADDED FURNITURE
Absorption
Coefficients at
Octave
Frequencies
Surface Type
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
6
0.05
0.15
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
17
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
17
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
16
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
35
0.14
0.35
0.55
0.72
0.70
0.65
Surface No. Surface Type Area
1
6
355
2
17
355
3
17
520
4
16
88
5
35
100
Sum -Area x Absorption:
Ave. Absorp. Coeff.:
Area X Absorption at Octave Frequencies
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
18
53
107
142
178
213
36
28
18
11
11
11
52
42
26
16
16
16
14
35
55
72
70
65
128
163
209
243
276
307
0.09
0.11
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.22
Reverberation Times: 1.09
Room Volume: 2,838 Cubic Feet
0.85 0.67 0.57 0.50 0.45
4 V > 1
1"..
TABLE 6.
COMPOSITE
TRANSMISSION LOSS OF THE PARTITION
SYSTEM
LUSK CO.
PROJECT NO.:
1668-86
LIVING ROOM, PREMIERE
STC 32 WINDOW
h GLASS DOOR
JAN.
12, 1987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREQ.,Hz
TRANSMISSION
LOSS OF THE
ELEMENTS COMPOSITE
TL STC
RESID
--------
---------------------------------
ELEMENT 1
ELEMENT 2
------------
ELEMENT 3
---
-----
50
---------
25.0
---------
25.0
---------
24.0
24.5
0
0.0
63
26.0
26.0
25.0
25.5
0
0.0
80
37.0
27.0
26.0
27.8
0
0.0
100
25.0
28.0
27.0
26.4
0
0.0
125
25.0
29.0
28.0
26.9
17
0.0
160
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
20
0.0
200
42.0
30.0
26.0
28.5
23
0.0
250
41.0
29.0
28.0
29.9
26
0.0
315
44.0
29.0
28.0
30.0
29
0.0
400
43.0
28.0
28.0
29.7
32
2.3
500
45.0
31.0
31.0
32.7
33
0.3
630
45.0
33.0
32.0
33.9
34
0.1
800
46.0
33.0
31.0
33.1
35
1.9
1,000
45.0
34.0
30.0
32.5
36
3.5
1,250
46.0
33.0
30.0
32.3
37
4.7
1,600
48.0
33.0
33.0
34.7
37
2.3
21000
50.0
31.0.
33.0
34.1
37
2.9
2,500
50.0
32.0
33.0
34.4
37
2.6
3,150
50.0
31.0
34.0
34.7
37
2.3
4,000
55.0
33.0
36.0
36.7
37
0.3
5,000
58.0
34.0
37.0
37.7
0
0.0
6,300
62.0
35.0
38.0
38.7
0
0.0
8,000
65.0
36.0
39.0
39.7
0
0.0
10,000
67.0
37.0
40.0
40.7
0
0.0
Sound
Transmission
Class (STC): 33
Sum
of the
Residuals: 23.2
TABLE 7. OUTSIDE SOURCE TO REVERBERANT ROOM, A -WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS
LUSK CO.
PROJECT
NO.: 1668-86
LIVING ROOM,
PREMIERE STC
32 WINDOW &
GLASS DOOR
JAN. 12, 1987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTERIOR
TRANS.
ROOM
INTERIOR
FREQ
NOISE
_LOSS_
CORRECTION*
NOISE _
50
36
24
5
17
63
41
25
5
21
80
46
28
5
22
100
50
26
4
28
125
54
27
4
31
160
56
30
4
29
200
58
28
4
33
250
60
30
3
33
315
61
30
3
34
400
62
30
3
35
500
62
33
2
32
630
63
34
2
31
800
64
33
2
33
1000
64
32
2
33
1250
63
32
2
33
1600
62
35
2
29
2000
61
34
2
29
2500
58
34
2
25
3150
55
35
1
22
4000
52
37
1
17
5000
49
38
1
12
6300
45
39
2
8
8000
42
40
2
4
10000
37
41
2
0
A -WEIGHTED
SOUND LEVELS:
73 dB(A)
44 dB(A)
*INCLUDES 3 dB REDUCTION FOR WINDOW TO ROOM CENTER CORRECTION
- M E M O -
Date: July 14, 1987
TO: File y
FROM: Tracy Ferguson, Associate Planner
Z. SUBJECT: Sea Island
On July 13, 1987, I spoke with Steve Vanetta of the Lusk Company to
discuss the remaining items that must be satisfied prior,to occupancy
of Sea Island. The following items were discussed:
1. The acoustical report submitted must provide verification that
the project conforms to the 65 dba and 45 dba requirement. A
report submitted by VanHouten and Associates on July 8, 1987 does
not ensure compliance.
2. Additional data was requested from VanDell and Associates to
ensure compliance with the approved building heights. Staff
suggested a chart indicating actual ridge heights.
3. Installation of landscaping.
l '
Van Dell and Associates, In�
17801 Cartwright Road
Irvine, California 92714
714/474-1400
January 19, 1988
Mr. James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
SEA ISLAND PHASE II
TRACT 9676
BUILDINGS 31, 32, 33, 34, AND 35
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
i .-
RECEIVED
Planr31V'
JAN2O1988
C" OF
WWPM MACH,
�
f ldiF
Enclosed for your review is the documentation showing elevations
for buildings for the above subject project. The table utilizes
the previous enclosures of the John D. Lusk and Sons letter dated
April 27, 1985 and as modified on July 29, 1986. The table shows
the actual surveyed elevations in parentheses for your
comparative review.
The table now includes elevations for buildings 31, 32, 33, 34,
and 35, as well as 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30, which were
approved in July 1987.
If you or your staff have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
Sincerely,
VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. l�
Daniel R. Rainey, P.E.
Senior Vice President 1W� EtElous
� P/Lov��Ee i
RCE 26361 Tj-4,T THE Sfn"lct^ 5
Enclosures
CC: J. Waples, Lusk
John Talley, C.Y.
Steve Peters, Lusk
410.0100
pv Al Exc.E>=p 'fkFE APr'2ev�
p rto
v
hqE (240F H-5"1�1S
MPY. RIDGE Ht�4NiS.
J Al Cgrn ud
�y
O
Wing
ber
27
28
29
30
31
32
33-
SEA ISLAND UPHILL UNITS GENERAL -CASE
APPROVED,/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, Ae eKOVED/ PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
Approved Pad
96
102
106
(105.1)
102
(102.6)
1.02
f100.7)
102
(99.5)
106
(9,7.0)
(Actual Field.Elevatioris)
Approved Max.
Ave. Roof &-
Approved Max.
Flat Roof
128
134
138
134
134
134
138
PROPOSED PAD AREA
Proposed Max. Pro. Max. Approved Max
Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge
120.8 126.0 133
126.5 131.7 139
129.6(130.8) 134.8(134.4)143
126.8(128.3) 132.0(131.8)139
125.21126.1) 130.4(130.1)139
-124.0 (125.5) 129.2(128.7)139
121.1 (122.3) 126.3(126.3)143
Proposed Max.
Ridge
122.2
129.2
132.2 (131.4)
128.2 (129.4)
127.9 (127.6)
125.4 (125.8)
123.2 (123.4)
(Building
Number
SEA ISLAND.UPHILL UNITS LIMITED CASE (shaded area)
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXTM11M FLAT ROOF -AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED UNIT PAD AREA Appr. Max. PROPOSED GARAGE PAD AREA
Ave. Roof &
Approved Appr. Max Prop Max. Approved Prop. Max, Appr. Appr..Max. Prop Maw. Prop. Max. Approved Max. Pro. Max.
Fad Ave. Roof Ave. Roof Max. Ridge Ridge Pad Flat Roof - Hve. Roof Flat Roof Ridge Ridge.
27 --- -- --- --- --- 90 122 108.5 127
28- 96 1z8 126.3 133 128.6 96• 128
115.2 133 _
29 102 (105.1) 134 127.4(127.6) 139 128.7(128.9)102 (105.1) 134 118.3(118.2) 139 _
30 --- --- __- 102 ---
3i --- --- --- --- --- lOZ ---
--- - - -
.32 --- --- --- --- --- 102 --- --- - -
--- --- --- 106 ---
'-Pad overlap area without unit overlap.
(Actual Field Elevations)
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS LIMITED CASE (shaded area)
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM
AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT
ROOF AND
APPROVED(PROPOSED MAXIMUM
RIDGE ELEVATIONS
-
PROPOSEDAARAGE
AREA b-=
Approved Max.
Ave. Roof &
•
Building
Approved
Approved Max.
Proposed Max.
Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Proposed Max.
Humber
Pad
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof
Flat Roof Ridge
Ridge
1
---
---
---
- -
-
16
---
---
---
- -
-
17
--- , _�
---
---
- -
-
18
40•
72
65.5
- 77
67.5
20
68 (66.6)
100
89.9 (93.8)
92.0 (92.1) 105
92.0 (93.0)
- 21
68 (69.6)
100
92.9 (93.3)
95.0 (95.1) 105
95.0 (96.0)
22
---•
---
---
- -
- -
-
-
23
---
---
24
---
---
---
25
96 (94.6)
128 '
118.3 (120.4)
118.3 (120.3) 133
120.3(121.1)
26
---
---
---
-
-
34
---
---
---
- -
-
35
---
---
--
- -
-
(Actual Field Elevations) Revised July 29,.1986
1
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS LIMITED CASE (shaded areal
)SED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
PROPOSED GARAGE
AREA a
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof &
Building
Approved
Appr. Max.
Proposed
Max.
Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Proposed
Max.
Number
Pad
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof
Flat Roof
Ridge
Ridge
1
40
72
65.8
67.1
77
68.1
16
88
120
107.3
109.4
125
109.4
17
39
71
64.0
66.1
76
66.1
18
44
76
65.5
-
81
67.5
19
46
78
66.9
-
83
69.0
20
68 (66.6)
100
89.9
(93.8)
92.0
(92.1)
105
92.0
(93.0)
21
70 (69.6)
102
92•9
(93.3)
95.0
(95.1)
107
95.0
(96.0)
22
---
-
-
-
23
74 (75.3)
106
98.8
(99.0)
100.8
(101.2)
111
100.8
(101.1)
24
--
---
----
25
96 (94.6)
128
118.3
(120.4)
118.3
(120.3)
133
120.3
(121.1)
26
-
---
---
-
-
-
34
--
---
---
-
-
-
35
--
---
---
-
-
-
(Actual
Field Elevation)
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS GENERAL CASE
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED GARAGE PAD B AREA
PROPOSED
GARAGE PAD
C AREA
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof &
Building
Number
Appr. Appr. Max.
Pad Flat Roof
Pro. Max. Pro. Max.
Ave. Roof Flat Roof
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
App.
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
Appr. Max.
Proposed
1
50 82
Ridge _ $ _
Ridge
Pad
-'
Ave. Roof
Ave. Roof
Ridge
Rid g e
64.1 -
87
66.3
_
_
I6
92 124
- 109.4
129
_
_
- -
17
49 81
64.4
_
92
124
107.7
129
109.7
-
86
66.4
_
18
50 82
64.4 -
87
66.6
_
19
54 86
67.3 -
91
69.3
-
_
20
78 (76.3) 110
90.3 (93.8) _
115
92.3 (93.0)
-
21
80 (79.2) 112
93.3 (93.3) _
117
95.3 (96.0)
-
22
_ _
-
-
23
84 (85.4) 116
97.7 (100.9) -
121
99.9 (101.1)
24
102(101.4134
115.3(117.2) 115.3(117.5)
139
117.4(118.4)
25
106(109.1)138
118.3(120.4) 118.3(120.3)
143
120.3(121.1)
_
26
96 128
113.5 115.5
133
115.5
96
128
34
104(98.8)136
112.5(112.2)
112.5
133 _
114.7
_
141
114.5(114.8)
-
35
102(101.0X34
114.1 (115.0)114.1
139
116.2(117.3)
(Actual Field Elevation)
. Revised July 29, 1986
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL 'UNITS GENERAL CASE
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM .FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED UNIT PAD AREA
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof &
Building
Appr.
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
Pro. Max.
Appr. Max.
Prop. Max.
Number
Pad
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof
Flat Goof
Ridge
Ridge
1
40
72
64.9
71.3
77
68.1
16
84
116
107.7
113.6
121
109.7
17
39
71
64.4
70.3
76
66.4
18 -
40
72
66.2 71.9
77
19
44
76
67.3 •73.2
81
20
68(66.6)
100
90.3 (9'3.8)96.2
(96.2)
105
21
68(69.6)
100
93.3 (93.3)99.2
(98.9)
105
22
72(73.3)
104
96.3 (99-0) 102.7
(102.6)
I09
23
74 (75.3)
106
99.5 (100.9105.2
(105.1)
ill
24
92 (92.6)
124
115.:7(117.2121.6
(121.4)
129
25
94 (94.6)
126
118.3 (120.4124.2
(124.2)
131.
26
86
118
113.3 119.7
123
34
94 (88.3)
126
112. 5(113.6) 118.4
(117.8)
131
35
92 (90.8)124
114.5(116.4)L20.4
(120.4)
129
(Actual Field Elevation)
68.5
69.3
92.3 (96.2)
95.3 (99.1)
99.5 (102.7)
101.8 (102.0)
117.7 (121.6)
120.3 (124.2)
116.5
114.5(114.8)
116.5(117.3)
Buildings 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30 Surveyed July 1987
Buildings 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 Surveyed January 1988
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof &
Appr. Appr. Max.
Pad Flat Roof
50 82
94 126
49 81
50 82
54 86
78(76.3) 110
78(70.2) 110
80(82.9) 112
84(85.4) 116
102(101.4) 134
104(104.1) 136
98 130
104(98.8) 136
102(101.0)134
PROPOSED GARAGE PAD A AREA
Pro. Max: Pro. Max. Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge
65.8 67.1 87
107.3 - 131
64.0 66.1 86
65.5 6.7.5 87
66.9 69.0 91
89.9 (93.8) 92.0 (92.1) 115
92.9 (93.3) .95.0 (95.1) 115
97.2 (99.0) 98.5 (98.9) 117
98.8(100.9) 100.8 (101.2) 121 -
115.7.(117.2) 115.7 (117.5) 139
117.9(120.4) 117.9 (120.3) 141
114.2 - 135
112.1(112.2) 114.2(114.0) 141
114.5 (115.0)114.5(116.3) 139
Pro. Max.
Ridge
68.1 •
109.4
66.1
67.5
69.0
92.0 (93.0)
95.0 (96.0)
99.5 (99.8)
100.8(101.1)
117.7(118.4) .
120.0(121.1)
116.5
114.2(114.8)
1i6.5 (117.3)
'I
!' ,1
D-1.�--A Y..,-. 1- In - -
CORBINNAMAFUJI AND PARTNERS, INC.
ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING
17992 MITCHELL SOUTH 701 EAST 8ROWARD BLVD.
SUITE 200 SUITE G
IRVINE. CA 92714 FORT LAUDERDALE, R. 33301
TLX 182-499 PACGULF P
PHONE (714) 660-0970 HONE (305) 462-4964
July 20, 1987
Mr. Jay Garcia
Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
RE: SEA ISLAND, NEWPORT BEACH - THE LUSK COMPANY
Dear Jay:
This correspondence concerns our recent conversation•discussing
the certification of the building heights at Sea Island in
Newport Beach.
We would like to take this opportunity to submitt documentation -
we feel will assist you in reviewing our request.
We are providing you with the original charts dated April
27, 1985, and revised July 29, 1986, which describe the
approved and proposed pad/elevation statistics. As a part
of these charts we are now showing the actual pad/elevation
statistics for your comparative review.
We look forward to working with you on this request. If
you have any questions please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
*;r. Tully
Vice President n ��
Planning & Governmental Relations
JPT/vt
enclosure
t
Vrm Dell and Associates, Inc.
17801 Cartwright Road
Irvine, California 92714
714/474-1400
1
July 20, 1987
Mr. James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
SEA ISLAND PHASE II
TRACT 9676
BUILDINGS 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, AND 30
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
Attached for your review is the table showing elevations for
buildings for the above subject project. The table utilizes the
previous enclosures of the John D. Lusk and Sons' letter dated
April 27, 1985 and as modified on July 29, 1986. The existing
surveyed field elevations are in parentheses.
The table was required by your staff prior to their release for
Use and Occupancy of the building(s). As you will note, all the
roof elevations are lower than the approved maximum ridge
elevations.
Therefore, please consider my letter of July 7, 1987 as
certification of the maximum ridge elements.
This verification is for the elevations shown only and does not
pertain in any way to structural elements or materials.
Again, if you or your staff have any questions or if I can be of
any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 474-1400.
Sincerely,
VDELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Daniel R. Rainey, P.E.
Vice President
RCE 26361
DRR:dw
Enclosures
CC,. J. Waples; Lusk
John Talley, C.Y.
Steve Peters, Lusk
410.0100
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL 'UNITS GENERAL CASE ,.
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED UNIT PAD AREA ` PROPOSED GARAGE PAD A AR1;A
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof d
Building
Appr. Appr. Max.
Pro. Max. Pro. Max. Appr, Max.
Prop. Max.
Number
Pad Flat Roof
Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge
Ridge
1
40
72
64.9 71.3
77
68.1
16
84
116
107.7 113.6
121
109.7
17
39
71
64.4 70.3
76
66.4
18
40
72
66.2 71.9
77
68.5
19
44
76
67.3 73.2
81
69.3
20
68(66.6)
100
90.3 (99.8) 96.2
(96.2)
105
92.3(96.2.)
21
68(69.6)
100
93.3 (93.3) 99.2
(98.9)
105
95.3 (99.1)
22
72(73.3)
104
96.3(99.0)102.7
(102.6)
309
99.5 (102.7)
23
74 (75.3)
106
99.5 (100.9105.2
(105.1)
Ill
101.8 (102.0)
24
92 (92.6)
124
115s7(117.2121. 6
(121.4)
129
117.7 (121.6)
25
94 (94.6)
126'
118.3 (120.4124.2
(124.2)
131
120. 3(124.2)
26
86
118
.113.3
123
116.5
34
94
126
112.5 118.4
131
114.5
35
92
124
114:5 120.4
129
116.5
(Actual Field Elevation)
AMax.
Ave.e
Roof 6
Appr. Appr. Max.
Pro. Max. Pro. Max. Appr, Max.
Pro. Max.
Pad Flat Roof
Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge
Ridge
-50
82
65.8
67.1
87
68.1
94
126
107.3
-
131
104:4
49
81
64.0
66.1
86
66.1
50
82
65.5
67.5
87
67.5
54
86
66.9
69.0
91
69.0
78(76.3)
110
89.9 (93.8)
92.0
(92.1)
115
92.0 (93.0)
78(70.2)
110
92.9 (93.3)
95.0
(95.1)
115
95.0 (96.0)
80(82.9)
112
97.2 (99.0)
98.5
(98.9)
117
99.5 (99.8)
84(85.4)
116
98.8(100.9)
100.8
(101.2)
121
100.8(101.1)
102(101.4)
134
.115.7(117.2)
115.7
(117.5)
139
117.7(118.4)
104(104.1)
136
117. 9(120.4)
117.9
(120.3)
141
320.0(121.1)�
98
130
114.2
-
135
116.5
`
104
136
112.1
114.2
141
114.2
102
134
114.5
114.5
139
116.5
Revised July 29, 1986
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS GENERAL CASE
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED GARAGE PAD B AREA ouAnnrrn o�u r nor•
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof 6
Building
Appr. Appr. Max.
Pro. Max. Pro. Max.
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
Number
Pad Flat Roof
Ave. Roof FlaRoof
RidRa
Ridge
1
50 82
64.1 -
87
66.3
16
92 124
- 109.4
129
-
17
49 81
64.4 -
86
66.4
18
50 82
64.4 -
87
66.6
19
54 86
67.3 -
91
69.3 `
20
78 (76.3) 110
90.3 (93.8) -
115
92.3 (93.0)
21
80 (79,2) 112
93.3 (93.3) _
117
95.3 (96.0)
22
- _
_
23
84 (85.4) 116
97.7 (100.9) -
121
99.9 (101.1)
24
102(101.4134
115.3(117.2) 115. 3(117.5)
139
117.4(118.4)
25
106C109. 1)138
118.3(120.4) 118. 3(120.3)
143
120.3(121.1)
26
96 128
113.5 115.5,
133
115.5
34
104 136
112.5 -
141
114.5
35
102 134
114.1 114.1
139
116.2
(Actual Field Elevation)
App.
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
Appr.•Max.
Proposed
.Pad
Ave. Roof
Ave. Roof
Ridge
Ridge
92
124
107.7
129
109.7
96
128
112.5
133
114.7.
Revised July 29, 1986
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS LIMITED CASE (shaded areal
APPROVED/PROPOSCD MAXII.UII AVCRACE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
PROPOSED
GARAGE
AREA e
`
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof 6
Building
Approved
Appr. Max.
Proposed
Max.
Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Proposed
Max.
,.
Number
..Pad
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof
Fiat Roof
Ridge
Ridge
1
40
72
65.8
67.1
77
68.1
16
88
L20
t07.3
109.4
125
109.4
17
39
71
64.0
66.1
76
66.1
18
44
76
65.5
-
BI
67.5
19
46
78
66.9
-
83
69.0
20
68
(66.6)
100
89.9
(93.8)
92.0 (92.1)
105
92.0
(93.0)
21
70
(69.6)
102
92.9
(93.3)
95.0 (95.1)
107
95.0
(96.0)
22
23
__
74
(75.3)
___
106
___
98.8
(99.0)
100.8 (101.2)
ill
100.8
(101.1)
.
24
---
-
-
-
25
96
(94.6)
128
118.3
(120.4)
118.3 (120.3)
133
120.3
(121.1)
26
--
---
---
-
-
-
34
35
---
-
-
-
(Actual Field Elevation)
Revised July 29, 1986
a
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS LIIjITED CASE (shaded areal
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT
ROOF AND
'
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED.CARAGE AREA b•-'
Approved Max.
•
Ave. Roof d '
Building
Approved
Approved Max. Proposed Max. Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Proposed Max.
Number
Pad
Fiat Roof Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge
Ridge
I
16
---
--- --- -
-
• 17
--- • _ i
--- --- - -
-
18
40.
72 65.5 - 77
67.5
19
---
--- --- - -
-
20
68 (66.6)
100 89.9 (93.8) 92•0 (92.1) 105
92.0 (93.0)
21
68 (69.6)
100 92.9 (93.3) 95.0 (95.1) 105
95.0 (96.0)
22
---
--- --- - -
-
23
---
--- ___ - -
-
' 24
---
--- --- -
-
•
25
96(94.6)
128 ' 118,3 (120.4) 118.3 (120.3) 133
120.3(121.1)
..-
26
---
--- --- _
-
34
---
--- --- -
-
35
---
--- -- -
-
(Actual Field Elevations) Revised July 29, 1986
Ck
SEA ISLAND UPHILL UNITS GENERAL CASE
•
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND—
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED PAD AREA
Approved Max.
•
Building
Approved
Pad
. Ave. Roof &Approved Max. Proposed Max. Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Proposed
Max.
Number
Flat Roof Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge
Ridge
27
96
128 120.8 126.0 133
122.2
28
102
134 126.5 131.7 139
129.2
29
106
(105.1)
138 129.6(130.8) 134.8(134.4)143
132.2
(131.4)
30
102
(102.6)
134 L26;5(128. 3) 132.0(131. 8) 139•
128.2
(129.4)
31
102
134 125.2 130.4 139
127.9
32
102
134 124.0 129.2 139
125.4
33
.106
138 12!.1 126.3 143
123.2
!1
(Actual Field Elevations)
Building
Number
27
28
29
30
3!
32
33
4
SEA ISLAND UPHILL
UNITS LIMITED CASE (shaded area)
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE
ROOFS APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXTMIIM
FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED
UNIT PAD AREA
Appr. Max.
PROPOSED GARAGE
PAD AREAI,
Ave. Roof
&
Approved
Appr. Max Prop Max. Approved
Prop. Max Appr. Appr..Max.
Prop Max.
Prop. Max.
Approved Max.
Pro. Max.
Pad
Ave. Roof Ave. Roof Max. Ridge
Ridge Pad Flat Roof
Ave. Roof
Flat Roof
Ridge
Ridge
-"
--- --- ---
--- 90 122,
108.5
127
96
.1'L8 126.3 133
128.6 96• 128
115.2
133
_
102 (105.11
134 127.4(127.6) 139
128.7(120.9) 102 (105.1) 134
118.3(118.2)
139 ...
-
---
'-- --- ---
--- 102
---
--- --- ---
--- 102 ---
---
--- --- ---
--- 102
---
--- ---
--- 106
'
'Pad overlap area without ynit overlap. =!
(Actual Field Elevations)
u
0
-7
Van Dell and Associates, Inc.
17801 Cartwright Road
Irvine, Calltomta 92714
714/474-1400
FEW
July 13, 1987
Mr. James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
ROOF ELEVATIONS
SEA ISLAND - TRACT 9676
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
Y,RECEIVED
PLANNING
t JUL 141987r
MY OF
NEwros:.s
As requested by Tracy Ferguson of your office, I have listed
below the roof elevation information pertaining to Sea Island
buildings 11125, 29 and 30.
Maximum Roof
Elevation Approved
Prior To
Existing
Building
Construction
Roof Elevation,
20
96.2
96.2
21
99.2
99.1
22
10-2.7
102.7
23
109.2
105.1
24
122.0,
121.6
25
124.2
124.2
29
134.8
134.6
30
132.0
132.00
Since the existing elevations are in conformance with the
approved maximum elevations, I would appreciate your approval in
releasing these buildings for occupancy.
Sincerely,
VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
-��'>'S �� -:3� -
Daniel R. Rainey, P.E.
Vice President
CC: Steve Peters, The Lusk Company
Jim Waples, The Lusk Company
Carl Rogers, VA
410.0109
Is
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL 'UNITS GENERAL CASE
L APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE'ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED UNIT PAD AREA PROPOSED -GARAGE PAD A AREA
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof 6
Building
Appr.
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
fo. Max.
Number
Pad
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof
Flat Roof
1
40
72
- 64.9
71.3
16
84
116
107.7
113.6
17
39
71
64.4
70.3
18
'40
72
66.2
71.9
19
44
76
67.3
73.2
20
68
iQ0'
90.3
96,2`
21
68
300
-93.3
99.2
22
72
104
96.3
SQ2.7
23
74
106
99.5
105.2
24
92
124
115,7
121.E
25
94 -
126
- 118.3
124.2
26
86
118
113.3
119.7
34
94
126
112.5
118.4
35
'92
124
114.5
120.4
Appr. Max.
' Ave. Roof 8
Appr. Max. Prop. Max. Appr. Appr. Max. Pro. Max.,. Pro. Max-. Appr. Max. Pro. Max.
Ridge Ridge' , Pad Flat Roof Ave. Roof Flat Roof Ridge Ridge
f
77 68.1 50 82 65.8 67.1 87 68.1 - --
121 109:7 94 126 107.3 - 131 109.4
76 66.4 49 81 64.0 66.1 86 66.1
77 68.5 50 82 65.5 .67.5 87 67.5
81 69.3 54 86 66.9 69.0 - 91 69.0
105 92.3- 78 110 89.9 92.0 115 92.0
105 ,95.3 78 110 92.9-.-95.0 115 95.0
109 99.5 80 112 97.2 98.5 117 99.5
Ill -101.8 84 , 116 98.8 100.8 121 100.8
129 -117.7 102 134 - .115.7- 115.7 139 117.7.
131 120.3 104 136 117.9 117.9 141 120.0
123 116.5 9k �130 114.2 - 135 116.5
131 114.5 104 136 112.1 .114.2 141 114.2
129 116.5 102 134 •114.5 114.5 139 116.5
r
Revised July 29, 1986
r
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS GENERAL CASE
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
,PROPOSED GARAGE PAD B AREA ." - PROPOSED GARAGE PAD C AREA
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof A
Building
Appr.
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
Pro. Max.
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
Number
Pad
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof
Flat Roof
Ridge
Ridge
1
50
82
64.1
-
87
66.3
16
92
124
-
109.4
129
-
17
49
81
64.4
-
86
66.4
18
50
82
64.4
-
87
66.6
19
54
86
67.3
-
91
69.3
20
78
110
90.3
-
115
92.3
21
80
112
93.3
-
117
95.3
22
-
_
-
23
84
116
97.7
-
121 '
99.9
24
102
134
115.3
115.3
139
117.4
25
106
138
118.3
118.3
143
120.3
26
96
128 --
113.5
115.5
133
115.5
34
104
136
112.5
-
141
114.5
35
102
134
114.1
114.1
139
216.2
..
r
4'
it
App.
Appr. Max.
Pro. Max.
Appr. Max.
Proposed
.Pad
Ave. Roof
Ave. Roof
Ridge
Ridge
92
124
107.7
129
109.7
96
128..
112.5
133
114.7
Revised July 29, 1986
40
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS 1IMITED CASE (shaded areal
APPROVED/PROPOSCD MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
PROPOSED GARAGE AREA a
Appr. Max.
Ave. Roof 6
Building
Approved
Appr. Max.
Proposed Max.
Pro. Max.
Approved Max.
Proposed Max.
)Amber
-Pad
Flat Roof
Ave. Roof
Flat Roof
Ridge
Ridge
1
40
72
65.8
67.1
77
68.1
16
88
120
107.3
109.4
125
109.4
17
39
71
64.0
66.1
76
66.1
is
44
76
65.5
-
61
67.5
. 19
46 ^
78
"".9
-
83
69.0
92.0
105
92.0
20
6B•
(L
21
7
70
102
92.9
,
95.0
107
95.0
22
--
---
_
-
-
23 1
74
106
96.8
300.E
111
100.E
' 24-
25
96
128
118.3
118.3.
133
120.3
26
-'
7--
34
-'
----
.r
35
•
rawis" July 29, 1986
0
0
SEA ISLAND DOWNHILL UNITS LIMITED CASE (shaded area)
-
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
'
APPROVEDIPROP0680 MUMV1 AIDGE XWATIOMi
PROPOSED -GARAGE AREA b
'
Approved Max.
Ave. Roof 6
Building
Approved
Approved Max. Proposed Max. Pro. Max. Approved Max.
Proposed Max.
Mueber
Pad
Flat Roof Ave. Roof Flat goof gidee
Ridge
I«—
--- _
—
16
17
—
---
is
40. -
72 63.3 — 77
67.3
19
20
68
100 89.9 92.0 105.
92.0
21
68
100 ' 92.9 93.0 1"
95.0
22
' 23
23
96
128 ' 118.3- .18.3 ? 131
120.3
26
34
33
--
_— -- —
—
r
1w1Y1 •7g1P 2!, -1le6
-
! a
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(714) 644-3200
June 26, 1987
TO: Baker Guthrie, Lusk Company
FROM: Tracy Ferguson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Tract 96767 Sea Island - Conditions of Occupancy
Prior to occupancy, the following Conditions of Approval must be
satisfied:
Condition No.
24 and 27 Applicant shall provide acoustical report.
(NOTE: Noise impacts shall not exceed 65 CNEL for
outside living areas and active recreation areas
and 45 CNEL for interior living areas.)
36 XA Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with
'ID the approved landscape plans.
Please see attached letter verifying maximum height allowed.
cc: John Burckle, Building Inspector
File
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Van Dell and Associates, Inc.•
17801 Cartwright Road
Irvine, California 92714
7141474-1400
July 7, 1987
Ms. Tracy Williams
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
LETTER OF VERIFICATION — LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT FOR
SEA ISLAND/PHASE II
Dear Ms. Williams:
The above landscape development program has been completed and
reviewed. This letter is to verify that the landscape irrigation
and plant materials have been installed in substantial
conformance with approved plans and specifications.
Sincerely,
VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ifyndon D. Robinson
Landscape Architect
LDR:dw
CC: Steve Peters
Don Putnam
410.0104
C"Cod, +L;1���
V6 Dell and Associates, Inc. .
17801 Cartwright Road
Irvine, California 92714
714/474-1400
i�
July 7, 1987
Mr. James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
SEA ISLAND — TRACT 9676, PHASE II
7 RECEIVEDXff
Planning V.
Departmont
JUL8 jaer*b-
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIF.
in accordance with the letter sent to you on April 22, 1985 by
Mr. James Waples of The Lusk Company (see enclosed), the
following buildings are in accordance with the approved maximum
ridge elevations:
Buildings 20, 21, 224 23, 24, 25, 29 and 30
If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office.
Sincerely,
VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Daniel R.
Vice President
DRR:GMC:vb
CC: Jim Waples, The Lusk Company
Steve Peters, The Lusk Company
410.0103
JOHN D. LUSK & SOf-�
A MEMBER OF THE LUSK FAMILY OF COMPANIES
17550 Gillette Ave, Irvine Industrial Complex • P.O. Box C-19560, Irvine, CA 92713 • (714) 261.6999
HAND DELIVER
April 22, 1985
Mr. James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658
Re: Sea Island
Tract 9676, Phase II
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
Y RECE,
P11 -
06 .
JUL8
crrr
NE4VP0Rs
CALJF. ♦R
This is to certify that prior to receiving the final inspection, we will
furnish the City Planning Department with a certification or letter from a
licensed surveyor indicating that the maximum ridge elevations on each
dwelling within Phase II of Tract 9676 do not exceed the elevations presented
and approved by the Planning Department. A copy of approved proposed maximum
average roof elevations dated March 28, 1985, Schedule A Al through A6 is
attached.
In consideration for providing this certification, we respectfully request
your favorable consideration in releasing this project for building and
grading permit purposes. Thank you very much for your assistance in this
matter.
Sincerely,
JOHN D. LUSK &/. SON
I
mes r. Waple
n1 Vice President
4ir
Enclosures
cc: Don Steffensen (w/o enclosure)
Ken Meddock (w/o enclosure)
c/o Van Dell and Associates
John Tulley (w/o enclosure)
c/o Corbin Yamafuji
John Collinson (w/o enclosure)
Baker Guthrie (w/o'enclosure)
. � r�...,,:•p" '" ... ,..;,pC• - 'av:...a _".: '•`•.1.0 ;tgfF r2.=• ..:{vb. ,"., � a4°x:na..; . II
11,72271
and Partners
CORBIN/YAMAFUJI AND PARTNERS, INC.
ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING
17992 MITCHELL SOUTH 1301 BROWARD EAST
SUITE 200 SUITE 303
IRV INE, CA 92714 FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33301
PHONE (714) 660.0970
Memorandum:
Telephone Conference
PHONE(305)462.4964
The following was recordedduring the conference and shol txaorneo recordofthe dv.uss,on unlessCcrUrWamoful and Portners.Inc. is
informed of any corrections or omissions in writing within a reosonacle time
DATE/TIME:
PROJECT:
PROJECT NUMBER:
CLIENT:
CALLTO:
CALL FROM:
PURPOSE:
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
March 5, 1985
Sea Island
8336
John D. Lusk and Son
John Tully
Tracy Williams
Reiterate phone discussion items.
1.
The garage setbacks will be measured from
face of garage to back of sidewalk.
2.
Skewed driveways will be calculated from
the midpoint of garage face to back of
sidewalk.
3.
Sidewalks may be widened and the garage
setback dimensions shall be measured from
the new back of sidewalk.
4.
Staff will evaluate the submitted site plan
and inform applicant on non -complying
driveway setbacks that are the same relative
dimension and number as P.C. approved plan.
The intention here is that if isolated
driveways can'`t-be—made to con orm o t ugh
are consistent in content- with the pre-
vious y approved plan, ttey would be
accepted and not require Modification
Hearing.
'fie 101.1
� P;V-
10
ow, AA.
M °I
A00An
�` p 5i(1li' IpQ
o \� •;�a �� s` apy+� q 10 e ` °a / �� ��� Ah� G� i a, 3 Q• q Ay
B101
ff
� 5
llp
is I
�FQ146
IL
4
a0
o sB `tI 7F q 6
PI
Oro
LL
P Sig ow,
o occq a c� '"" 6� gA0 k m �ti ke�r, •? OP
A -\ m J"� �/ 10
00
4.
�6f. A AS ! u .0
l� I o �9 g 95.00 d r 1 r
\O % M o ri I o COIN A0 q0 �
b0 1* d" b4, pi q ! 1" �V �\ �' 1 p 't 7pj3
CIO
6' ao G �.
17
1010
0
CORBIN/YAMAFUJI AND PARTNERS, INC.
ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING
17992 MITCHELL SOUTH 4301 BROWARD EAST
SUITE 200 SUITE 303
IRVINE. CA 92714 FORT LAUDERDALE FL33301
TLX 182-499 PACGULF
PHONE (714) 660-0970 PHONE (305) 462-4964
March 6, 1985
Jim Hewicker
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA
92658-8915
RE: Sea Island
Dear Jim:
RECEIVED
Planning
Department
111R7 1985 •.
an' OF
N£HE+4pi �
This correspondence concerns our recent submittal of Sea
Island,' Phase 2 for John D. Lusk and Son.
Per your direction, we are working With your staff, and
adjusting our drawings to be in substantial compliance with
the previously approved plans, the P.C. document, and the
Zoning Code.
" With the recent planning staff direction to change our
driveway setbacks, we are currently revising the engineering,
architectural, and landscape documents.
The time required for revisions necessitates requesting that
we be permitted to process, obtain approval, and pull permits
for the models, and phase one ?ortion of the project prior to
formally submitting the remaining portion. We will be
coordinating with your staff the details for the remaining
portion immediately.
Should you have any questions, please call me, we look
forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
e4aL
n Tully
Associate Director
cc: Bob Yamafuji
Don Steffensen
of Planning
13
RECEIVED 2 5 1585
JOHN •D, LUSK & SON
A MEMBER OF THE LUSK FAMILY OF COMPANIES
17550 Gillette Ave, Irvine Industrigl Complex • P.O. Box C•19560, Irvine, CA 92713 • (714) 201.5999
HAND DELIVER (
April 22, 1985
Mr. James D. Hewicker, Planning Director
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport,Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 926581-
Re: Sea Island
Tract 9676, Phase II
Dear Mr. Hewicker:
f This is to certify that prior to receiving the final inspection, we will
furnish the City Planning Department with a certification or letter from a
licensed surveyor indicating that the maximum ridge elevations on each
'dwelling within Phase II of Tract 9676 do not exceed the elevations presented
and approved by the Planni'g Departmenty; A copy of approved proposed maximum
average roof elevations dRed March 28, 1985, Schedule A Al through A6 is
attached.
In consideration for providing this certification, we respectfully request
your favorable consideration in releasing this project for building and
grading permit purposes. Thank you very much for your assistance in this
matter.
Sincerely,
JOHN D. LUSK & SON
mes Waple
eni Vice President
I
Enclosures
cc: Don Steffensen N/o enclosure)
Ken Meddock N/o enclosure)
c/o Van Dell and Associates
John Tulley N/o enclosure)
c/o Corbin Yamafuji
John Collinson (w/o enclosure)
Baker Guthrie (w/o enclosure)
. CIVIL ENGINEER'S CERTAMCATION FORM
From: Robert C. Liewer
van Dell and Associates, Inc.
17801 Cartwright Irvine, CA
Date: 'September 30, 1983
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Mr. Jim Lormen
Attention: Building Department, Grading Engineer
G.P.C.#: 958-79 Tract/Subdivision/Lot No:
Project Name: Sea Island
Tract 9676
Rough Final`{
Project Address: Jamboree Road and Island Lagoon Drive
Owner/Developer: John D. Lusk & Sons
Type of Project: Tract X Commercial _Industrial Drainage _Other
Other:
Yardagefor Project: Cut 200,000 Fill 300,000 Borrow 100,000 Export
I hereby approve the grading for this profggct in accordance with my responsibilities
under the City Grading Code. The grading h'as been completed: X in conformance with,
x with the following changes to,the approved grading plan.
f
Description of Changes: 1. Precise Grade Certification - Units 7-54 and the
Recreation Facilitv (Lot 1) are built in substantial conformance to the
approved Precise Grading Plan as to line; grade, and construction of drainage
devices. 2. Rough Grade Certification -'All remaining units (1-6;55-132)
are not in substantial conformance to the Precise Grading Plan as to rough
grade pads. Enclosed is a unit by unit, b eakdown of the difference between
v
the "as built" pad and the rough graded pad elevation shown on the approved
precise grading plan.
r-
Company:
Name (PRIT
(SIGs
V.n gall �,A ➢ccnni �4-.c Tnn
License No.: RCE 31897
(RCE/LS) 11/80
"AS BUILT" PAD VERSUS APPROVED GRADING PLAN PAD
SEA ISLAND
TRACT 9676
SEPTEMBER 19, 1983
UNIT #
1-4
5/6
55/56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87/88
89
90
91
92
93/94
95
96
HIGH (FT)*
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.3 to 1.5
1.0
0.2
0.2
1.5
2.1
1.5
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.4 to 6.1
4.4 1
"AS BUILT" CONDITION
Parking Lot
Sales Office
LOW ( FT) *
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2 to 0.5
0.4
0.8
0.2 to 0.5
0.7
0.3 to 0.6
0.2 to 0.6
0.3 to 0.6
0.3 to 0.6
0.5
0.3, to 0.6
0.3 to 0.6
0.3 to 0.8
1.3
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
101/102
0.2
103/104
0.4
105/106
2.1
to
2.9
107/108
1.1
to
4.6
109
.8
to
1.8
110
1.1
0.4
111
0.6
1.2
112
0.4
113
0.2
0.4
114
0.3
0.3
115
0.4
1.5
116
0.3
117/118
0.3
0.5
119/120
0.5
0.7
121
0.3
0.3
122
0.4
123
0.4
124
0.4
125
0.7
126
0.2
127
0.5
128
0.5
129
0.5
130
131/132
0.3 to 7
Lot G
0.3
to
2.0
* When a high and
low
elevation
is given for one
pad, said pad varies from
one side to the other by
those elevations.
colaial No. A.ot,-79 a 4otued co,atr 196
S& . 'Gect R(o?(o -�iAa.9- i A 47'l
Van Dell and Associates, Inc. 0
17801 Cartwright Road
Irvin
Irvine, Caluorrva 92714
714/474-1400
June 14, 1985
Ms. Tracy Williams, Planner
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660
SEA ISLAND
410.0104-09
Dear Ms. Williams:
Pursuant your request, we are forwarding this letter to assure
the City of Newport Beach that landscaping plans will be
resubmitted with revisions for your approval. Landscaping will
be installed in accordance with approved plans and installed
prior to occupancy of the development.
We request that plans for the model complex landscaping be
approved and this landscaping be installed prior to approval of
the overall landscaping plans. The model complex will be
landscaped and inspected prior to occupancy of the models.
Thank you again for your unfailing assistance and cooperation.
Please express my gratitude also to Sandra Bahan and Christi
Dickerson with the Building Department for their helpfulness with
this project.
Yours truly,
VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Diane E. McKibben 4
Landscape Designer N. I
DEM:lk
u
CORBIN/YAMAFUJI AND PARTNERS, INC.
ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING
17992 MITCHELL SOUTH
SUITE 200
IRVINE, CA 92714
TLX 182-499 PACGULF
PHONE (714) 660-0970
May 28, 1985
Ms. Tracy Williams,
Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92663-3884
4301 BROWARD EAST
SUITE 303
FORT LAUDERDALE. R. 33301
Re: Minor Sea Island Site Plan Changes
Dear Ms. Williams:
PHONE (305) 462-4964
Final grading studies necessitated the following minor changes
in building position and non -conforming driveway location:
- Minor changes in the relative positions of buildings
24, 27, 28, 29, 30 on their respective lots have been
made. These building position changes do not produce
building maximum average roofs, maximum flat roofs, or
maximum ridges that exceed those approved for the
respective pad locations.
- Two of the four allowed non -conforming driveways have
changed location. In the first instance, the far
northerly driveway of building #30 which was non -conforming
has been made conforming and the driveway immediately
south of it has been changed to a non -conforming length.
In the second instance, the southerly driveway of
building 24 which was non -conforming has been made
conforming and the third driveway from the north on
building 28 which was conforming has been made non-
conforming.
If you should have any further questions, please contact me.
Thank you for your assistance.
Ver truly yours,
n Tully
Director - Planning
JH:lh
enclosure: Revised Sea Island uphill units limited Case
Building roof analysis, revised building roof,
and pad elevation analysis (map).
.,
TRANSMITTAL
LETTER
AIA DOCUMENT G810
yJ.o� 4�
4��- e h
4 Q\,ocat�t� 0
PROJECT: Sea Island
(name, address)
r City of Newport Beach Planning Dept
3300 Newport Blvd.
TO: Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
ATTN: Ms. Tracy Williams
L
WE TRANSMIT
J
I7 herewith ❑ under separate cover via
❑ in accordance with your request
FOR YOUR:
❑ approval ❑ distribution to parties
❑ review & comment ❑ record
El use ❑
THE FOLLOWING:
❑ Drawings ❑ Shop Drawing Prints
❑ Specifications ❑ Shop Drawing Reproducibles
❑ Change Order ❑
0
E I
and Partners
ARCHITECT'S
PROJECT NO: 8336
DATE: 5/29/85
If enclosures are not as noted, please in-
form us immediately.
❑ Acknowledge receipt of enclosures.
❑ Return enclosures to us.
❑ information
❑ Samples
❑ Product Literature
COPIES
DATE
REV. NO.
DESCRIPTION
ACTION
CODE
1
5/23/85
Revised Sea Island Building Roof and Pad
Elevation Analysis (map)
1
5/28/o5
Revised Sea Island Building Roof AnalysisUphill
Units Limited Case.
ACTION A. Action indicated on item transmitted
CODE B. No action required
C. For signature an&return to this office
REMARKS Reduced Copies
D For signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS
E. See REMARKS below
COPIES TO: (with enclosures) CORBINIYAMAFUJI AND PARTNERS, INC.
❑ ARCHItECTLWPLANNING
17992 MITCHELL SOUTH
❑ PHONE) 660-09 92714
0
❑ BY: John Tully
PAGE ONE
..�f
i
�\��, �,• sea island
grading plan
mclaindevelopment co.
I..
Kim
i
0
•
SEA ISLAND UPHILL UNITS LIMITED
CASE
(shaded area)
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMOM FLAT ROOF AND
• ^,,,• APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED UNIT PAD AREA
Appr. Max. PROPOSED CAME PAD AREA
'
Building
Approved
Appr. Max Prop Max. Approved Prop. Max
.Appr.
Ave. Roof 8
Appr:.Max. Prop Mpx.
Prop. Max.
Approved Max. Pro. Max.
Number
Pad
Ave. Roof Ave. Roof Max. Ridge Ridge
Pad
Flat Roof "e. Roof
I
Flat Roof
Ridge Ridge
27
«_
.._ __- ___ '
90
122
108.5
I 127 _
28 •
96
128 126.8 133 128.8
f
,96
128
115.2
r 133
29
102
134 127.4 139 i 128.7
102
134
118.3
139 _
30
---
--- --- --- --_
102
31
---
-- --- --- ---
102
----
32
--
--- -- --- -�
102
-- ---
-
I -
33
--
--- --- --
• I
106•
Revised May 28, 1985
I i .
oar
i
•
0
i
III•;; Fi,,� ;,¢ 1, :j' _�:../`,,�
her-
sea island
grading plan
mclain development co.
MI. � w^
�vLIU H M ME�,wC FMI
/� 2
0
SEA ISLAND UPHILL UNITS LIMITED
CASE
(sbaded area)
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM AVERAGE ROOF, APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM FLAT ROOF AND
APPROVED/PROPOSED MAXIMUM RIDGE ELEVATIONS
'
PROPOSED UNIT PAD AREA
Appr. Max. PROPOSED GARAGE
PAD AREA
Building
Approved
A r. Max
pp
Pro Max. A
p pproved Prop. Max
Appr.
Ave. Roof 6
Appr'c.Max. Prop Mpx.
Prop. Max.
' Approved Max. Pro. Max.
Number
Pad
Ave. Roof
Ave. Roof Max. Ridge Ridge
Pad
Flat Roof ave. Roof
Flat Roof
Ridge Ridge
27
_-_
..
--_ ___
90
122
108.5
! 127 -
28•
96
128 i
126.8 133 128.8
.96'
128
115.2
f 133 -
29
102
134
127.4 139 4 128.7
102
134
118.3
139 -
30
---
---
„_ _.._ --
102
—-
31
---
---
--- --- ---
102
-- ---
-
- -
32
---
_-_
�_ ___
102
33
--
-� -�
106•
•
i
_
Revised May 28. 1985
a
8!
SAN JOAQUI( &S TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (C 11) FEE PROGRAM
CALCULATION SHEET
BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECK NO.
OWNERS NAME
BUILDING ADDRESS
1. Area of Benefit (AOB): (See map on reverse side)
a. Not in AOB Q
(No fee required)
b. Zone A Q
Q Single Family Residence . . . . . $1,305/D.U.
[� Multi Unit Residential. . . . . . $ 760/D.U.
Q Non -Residential . . . . . . . . . $1.75/sq. ft.
c. Zone B Q
[� Single Family Residence . . . . . $1,010/D.U.
[?�T Multi Unit Residential. . . . . . $ 59O/D.U.
[� Non -Residential . . . . . . . . . $1.30/sq. ft.
2. Fee Calculation:
a. Residential:
Increase in number of Dwellings (IDU) 14v
(If IDU = 0 or less, no fee required)
�6 IDU x Syd Unit Fee = "J, 5151SJHTC FEE
b. Non Residential:
Increase in gross square footage of
building area (IBA)* sq. ft.
(If IBA = o or less, nee required)
IBA x Sq. Ft. Fee = SJHTC FEE
*Do not include parking structures.
3. Exemptions to Fee Progrzm
Parking structures
Properties exempt from property tax .= :�• - '-
Government -owned facilities and utilities to the extent
they are not used for generating revenue or for
commercial purposes. (Privately owned utilities are
not exgmn�. )
Institutional uses, i.e., universities, colleges and
regional parks.
4. Total San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee $ ' ,
(Enter amount on Building Permit Application Form)
�jivS� 7Z-'
6
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(714) 644-3200
July 21, 1986
TO: File
FROM: Tracy E. Williams
SUBJECT: Telephone conversation with BAker Guthrie
Sea Island - Lusk Development Company
Request: Revise building to allow for change in Unit type
- Setbacks shall conform
- No increase in building height
- Slight increase in square footage
Action: Discussed with William R. Laycock and he agreed to revision
providing setbacks and height of structure conforms.
Advised Lusk Company to submit complete plans with
structural details.
R&ENTIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS /
Plan Check No--.
By: Tracy Williams, Associate Planner Telephone: (714) 644-3200
Date: Address:
Needs, "��/>�j'/7!� e t v�L/l 5' S 9 9� /.t �'/^��-r' •��.6'd/vis / pN
Corretion
/ •'.;70 Legal: Lot Block Section Tract
Covenant required to combine portions of lots. Please have w
signature notarized on attached document and return to me.
OK ,� �d'a ice/ - . 77&if eoPyAi .Qrvy o yr/e - <�� �h ,' /, G�e��e .�
Lot si a 41177 PLAN */I ADO!/af1
Zone .41- li
/gPOV/.oE S G+9oY /ND"G-/T"!/i/6 �1/// SG �x• IG�M/'�GG9G0 GNYlS>
_ Number of Units !3Z
Buildable Area
ti
Maximum Structural Area (Area ibcluding•exterior walls,
stairway on one level and required parking). x buildable area.
Proposed.Structural Area: x buildable area.
Open Space Area i/4' cu.ft, (Volume of space equal to buildable
width times buildable height times 6). This area must be six feet in any
direction (6'x6'•x6') and open on two sides or one side and above.
dGd� 7�I�/rLP/ Of 6�dJ
�;Iazze
�d�tef�
/1174 quired Setbacks /
Front 'Z�ps�d%G/�r✓�y! //0� /110/G p/l / S^ 0 _OTfy f
Rear S
Right Side J� , /i
f lO-iWl/bIA1%/l.
Left Side v7'
Distance between Buildings 8"G m//Z
Maximum Coverage -6-0 9- /W 'Vof"
Heights •FZ �f/'P///tlX, i',�d✓/C�' 9/�/�dr/S/4/y
Measured from natural grade to average roof heigl
�11F' Natural grade line shown on all elevations
Number of Stories no:hncJ
OA { Parking (17' - 6" x 19' - 0" inside dimensions) (Third required space
may be 8' x 16' i.d.) . f�OY/G� ///✓c"ridy O�l�rcdr/1i%7s
Fair Share Contribution SS/. S 3� Br vh/f X Z fs j .22� T d
SPECIAL APPROVAL REQUIRED THEU00n: / v�G/�vs �� _�•Y�yl�llGs
i>o /tple
Modifications Committee
4,07W 'PW �i/LsGPSf/>L�O' fiP,y'R'I/Y96�S• P.P1��/ G/�
Planning Commission: Public Works:
Use Permit . _ Subdivision Engineer
Variance Curb Cut Cow/q G7-
_ Resubdivision - Tract 91a76 Traffic Engineer ISSFNoQ� c�i�/✓/S
Site Plan Review .. if/�l/ii/�/L� PLA/✓/`f'/✓U - l^/Et1.o .B/�L�
Other - Building Department:
Grading Engineer �l6nzC-yy`�
Coastal CommissionS2N0/.f/6Gd�
Categorical Exclusion No.�r n''�/z
(Building permits may be issued 10 days fo to ing ssuance of C.E.O.)
Miscellaneous q•pC
ys� r7w?%a ems. 'P4ik b� otl i
1. Floor plan fully dimensioned showing all room uses.
2. Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings,
fences to property line.
% 3. Association Approval (Advisory)
4. Other 73i. 9 & 7l l Sev c7Yy�G/iC� liSo'/f/v//S of �6��i0YO� /� ,cam 'I
S4i/Sf�,l��/idr .� /./SaG.i� �✓��`�ii,�s 9S �/y�/i����
J il55lONERS MINUTES
�UM�' *ay g, 1980
s_
� � w
o a o W m D
�. N N C N Q City of Newport Beach
ROI.I CALL
I
I
I
INDEX
gested that the Tentative Map be approved with
the understanding to the Staff and McLain Enter-
prises that the maintenance agreement that is
reached should be of a type that is in the best
interest of those concerned.
Mr. Hewicker suggested that Commissioner Thomas
participate with the Staff, City Engineer and
Grading Engineer to help with the drafting of
said project, to which Commissioner Thomas agreed
Commissioner Thomas commented that between the
Dunes, Dover Shores and the County, there is al-
most 80,000 ft. of mud coming from the Upper
Bay by a collection of projects around the Bay
and that there needs to be more effective control
d,
to prevent damages.
Motion
x
Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap-
All Ayes
prove the two year extension for the recordation
C
of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 9676, subject
to the 12 findings and 43 co,nditions of the ori-
ginal approval and subject to the•following ad-
4 .J'j
ditional conditions:
1. That an 8' wide A.C. shoulder and 4' wide
A.C. drainage Swale shall be constructed
along the Jamboree Road tract boundary by
September 15, 1980, to prevent erosion. De-
sign of said improvements shall be approved
by the Public Works Department. The con-
struction of these improvements may be waiv-
ed by the Public Works Department if perma-
nent improvements on Jamboree Road are under
construction. by September 15, 1980.
2. That the storm drain line designed to col-
lect drainage from the golf course lake be
completed by September 15, 1980, and that
access to that drain be provided to the sa-
tisfaction of the Public Works Department.
3. That a P.C.C. brow ditch be constructed alon
the graded portion of Back Bay Drive and
that the slopes be restored and planted by
September 15, 1980. Erosion control plantin
shall be watered as necessary to establish
;,•i:.f
growth prior to October 15, 1980.
-3-
COMMISSIONERS (� MINUTES
" May 8, 1980
Fon=zc2,:.
a 0 m W X W � City of Newport Beach
ROIL CALL I I I I I I I I INDEX
4. That the Water Capital Improvement fees be
paid prior to recordation of the Final Map.
5. That the above ground diesel fuel tank be
removed.
6. That the prerequisites, to the grading pause;
outlined in the April 24, 1980 letter to the
McLain Development Company from the City's
Grading Engineer, shall be accomplished to
the satisfaction of the Building Official.
7. That an agreement be executed for the con-
struction of the required improvements and
that a cash certificate of deposit be posted
to guarantee construction by the dates shown.
Request to create one parcel of land for residen- Item #
tial condominium development and the acceptance
of an Environmental Document. RESUB-
LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 0-43 NO. 656
(Resubdivision No. 564) to ted at
207, 209 and 211 19th Str et, on APPROVED
the westerly side of 19 h Street, CONDI-
between West Balboa Bo evard and TIONALLY
West Bay Avenue on t Balboa Pen-
insula.
ZONE: R-3
APPLICANT: James A. Hunt man, Anaheim
OWNER: Same as AP/onee
licant
ENGINEER: oltavary, Newport Beach
Request to cre el of land forresiden- Item #3""?
tial condomi 'um development, and the acceptance
of an Environmental Document. RESUB-i"
LOCATIOW- Parcel No. '2 of Parcel Map 110-43 INO.657
X
(Resubdivision No. 564) located at'
PPROVED
nNnT-
-4-
COMMISSIONERS
City of Newport Beach
Aoti1 6. 1978
MINUTES
DOLL CALL
Program as being in conflict with the polic-
ies and goals of the California Coastal Act
and will not preclude further development ar
ultimate adoption by the City of a Local
Coastal Program as required under the Coasts
Act.
and recommend to the City Council the approval of
Tentative Map Tract No. 9676, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the previous approval of Resubdivision
No. 537 be rescinded if the map of Tentative
Tract No. 9676 is approved and that Resub-
division No. 537 be made null and void.
2. That a final map be filed.
3. That all improvements be constructed'as
required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
4. That a master plan of sewer and water util-
ities and storm drain facilities be prepare(
and appproved prior to recording any final
map(s).
5. That the location, width, and configuration
of the public utility easements be subject
further review and approval by the Public
Works Department prior to recording any fine
map(s).
6. That each dwelling unit be served with an
individual water service and sewer lateral
connection to the public water and sewer
systems unless otherwise approved by the
Public Works Department.
7. That a document be provided from the land-
owner downstream from the northerly drainage
structure crossing Jamboree Road agreeing ti
the proposed runoff diversion and accepting
the increased flow. The document shall be
a form that is satisfactory to the Public
Works Department and the City Attorney.
8. That any increases in the storm drain capac
crossing Jamboree Road shall be the develop
er's responsibility.
Page 17.
fl
IN01"
v Mc6S10moamiER5 City of Newport Beach MINUTES
DOLL CALL
9. That the remaining street improvements along
the Jamboree Road frontage be completed. An
appropriate credit under the Capital Improve-
ment Policy shall be allowed for improvements
which exceed the developer's responsibility
under the policy.
10. That the location of the fire hydrants be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department
and the Public Works Department.
11. That a 36-foot wide strip of land along the
southerly side of the tract be dedicated to
the Public for street and highway purposes
(BackBay Drive extension).
12. That construction of Back Bay Drive extension
adjacent to the site be deferred to a later
date to be determined by the City; and a
separate agreement and surety be provided
guaranteeing completion of the improvements.
13. That the location, width, configuration and
concept of the private street and drive
system be subject to further review and
approval by the City's Traffic Engineer prior
to recording any final map(s).
14.
15.
That the design of the private streets and
drives conform with the City's private street
policy except as approved by the Public Works
Department. The basic right-of-way width
shall be 34 feet.
That the structural section of the private
streets and drives be designed in accordance
with standard civil engineering practice.
The design shall be approved and the construc
tion inspected by the Public Works Department
The standard plan check and inspection fee
shall be paid.
e a
16, That streethlighting esystem tapproved s and �bysv the Public
Works Department.
17. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced
on the private streets and drives.
Page 18.
INCKX
COMMISSIONERS
} � A
City of Newport Beach
A. *I C 1070
MINUTES
n i
DOLL CALL
18. That delineation acceptable to the Police
Department and Public Works Department be
provided along the sidelines of the private
streets and drives.
19. That the intersection of the private streets
and drives be designed to provide sight
distance for a speed of 25 MPH. Slopes,
landscaping, walls and other physical obstrt,
tions shall be considered in the sight
distance requirements. Landscaping within th
sight distance tine shall not exceed 24
inches in height. The sight distance requir
ment may be appropriately modified at non-
critical locations, subject to approval of
the Traffic Engineer.
20. That a traffic control plan shalt be submit-
ted and approved by the City's Traffic
Engineer.
21. That 13 feet of additional street right-of-
way along the easterly side of Jamboree Roac
from Back Bay Drive extension to Private
Street "A" be dedicated to the City. In
addition, a triangular strip of right -of -was
(13 feet wide at the north side of Private
Street "A") northerly of Private Street "A",
adequate for lane transitions as establishes
by the City's Traffic Engineer, shall be
dedicated to the City for street and highway
purposes.
That a 12-foot wide portland cement concrete
pedestrian and bicycle trail be constructed
immediately behind the curb along the east-
erly side of Jamboree Road, with the dedica-
tion to the City of a 4-foot wide easement
for pedestrian and bicycle trail purposes.
An equivalent alternate design may be pro-
vided subject to the approval of the Public
Works Department.
23. That the developer shall participate in the
cost of the construction of a traffic signal
at Jamboree Road and Private Street "A" to
the extent of 50% of the cost of the signal
and associated street improvements. The
implementation of this requirement shall be
subject to verification by the City of sign)
Page 19.
INOK%
cOMMIBSIONERS
City of Newport Beach MINUTES
MOLL CALL
warrants and of the ability to obtain the
remaining funding. A separate agreement and
surety may accordingly be provided for this
work.
24. That the noise impact from Jamboree Road be
considered and that the dwelling units be
designed to provide for sound attenuation in
accordance with the requirements of law and
the recommendations of a qualified acoustical
engineer.
25. That the geometrics and any proposed guard
house gates or other access controls from
Jamboree Road be subject to review and
approval by the Public Works Department.
Sight distance shall be provided for a speed
of 55 MPH. In addition, adequate sight
distance shall be provided for bicycles on
the bike trail on the easterly side of
Jamboree Road.
26. That all vehicular access rights to Jamboree
Road be released and relinquished to the City
except for two private street openings at
locations approved by the Public Works
Department.
27. That sound attenuation structures be provided
olong the easterly side of Jamboree Road in
accordance with the recommendations of a
qualified acoustical engineer. The design
may provide for walls and/or earth berms to
lessen the amount of exposed vertical wall
face and provide for improved esthetic
treatment.
28. Th.at sidewalks be constructed adjacent to the
curbs unless a satisfactory alternate inter-
ior walkway system is provided and approved
by the Public Works Department.
29. That the tennis court lighting shall be
designed and certified by an electrical'
engineer to eliminate any glare and light
spillage to motorists on Jamboree Road.
30. That all vehicular access rights to Back Bay
Drive be released and relinquished to the
City.
Page 20.
INO<X
COMMISSIONERS
~Q„ r� f`QI,�'�0 7 •y6� 2G
q' ? O 'i�• t^f
«0
City of Newport Beach
e 1!l0
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
31. That an agreement and accompanying surety be
provided if it is desired to record the fine
map prior to completion of the public impro�
ments.
32. That equivalent parking in conformance with
the private street policy be provided to the
satisfaction of the Community Development
Department to compensate for the eliminatior
of all curb -side parking as shown on the
typical cross section of the Tentative Traci
Map (the 28-foot curb to curb width does not
provide for any parking).
33. That the proposed private loop access drive
on Lot 3 shall be widened to 26 feet so as i
provide adequate maneuverability for fire
trucks.
34. That grading shall be conducted in accordant
with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and
based on recommendations of a soil engineer
'and an engineering geologist subsequent to
the completion of a comprehensive oil and
geologic investigation of the site. Perman•
ent reproducible copies of the "Approved as
Built" grading plans on standard size sheet!
shall be furnished to the Department of
Community Development.
35. That the grading plan shall include a compll
plan for temporary and permanent drainage
facilities to minimize any potential impact!
from silt, debris, and other water pollutan,
and shall be approved by the Water Quality
Control Board. At a minimum, the drainage
facility plan shall include grease traps or
some equivalent device designed to trap oil
grease and other contaminates.
36. That landscape and irrigation plans be
reviewed and approved by the Director of
Parks; Beaches and Recreation.
37. That there shall be submitted a declaration
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions,
setting forth an enforceable method of
insuring the continued maintenance of the
proposed landscaping, fencing, residential
Page 21.
INONX
COMMISSIONERS
City of Newport BeachMINUTES
MOLL CALL
1NO<X
structures and utility facilities as well as
a requirement for any enforceable method of
rehabilitation or replacement of the struc-
tures on the site. The C.C.& R.s shall also
include a disclosure of any common sewer line
or other common utilities to service the
condominium units and the maintenance respon,
sibilities of said utilities. Furthermore,
the City shall not be held responsible for
any future problems with the subject util-
ities.
38. That the property owner shall agree to
reclassify approximately 4 acres oland for
f
open space purposes as required by the City
Council on March 14, 1977, and as clarified
by the City Council on March 28, 1977.
The specific location of said acreage shall
be designated and reviewed by the Planning
Commission at the time the Final Map is
presented for approval.
39. In addition to the acreage noted above the
applicant shall dedicate to the City a
minimum of 3.616 acres to park used forthe
tional
purposes of providing
facilities reasonably related to serving the
needs of the subdivision. The location of
said land shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Council. The specific location of
said acreage shall be designated and reviewed
by the Planning Commission at the time the
Final Map is presented for approval.
Commissioner Hummel opposed the motion as he felt
there had been adequate time within which to
accomplish the land transfer.
Request to amend the Planned Community Development
Plan for Corporate Plaza so as to permit general
changes in the Land Use Map and Text.
Location Parcel Map 93-46 (Resubdivision
No. 465) on property bounded by
Newport Center Drive, Farallon
Drive;-AYocado,nAvenue
PlannedEast
Commun-
Coast Highway_'
Commun-
ity of Corporate',Pa.aza.
Page 22.
90
04�
City Council - 7.
as clarified by the City Council on March 28, 1977.
The specific location of said acreage shall be
designated and reviewed by the Planning Commission
at the time the Final Map is presented for approval.
39. In addition to the acreage noted above, the applicant
shall dedicate to the City a minimum of 3.616 acres
to be used for the purposes of providing park and
recreational facilities reasonably related to serving
the needs of the subdivision. The location of said
land shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council.
The specific location of said acreage shall be designated
and reviewed by the Planning Commission at the time the
Final Map is presented for approval. .
40. That the density be reduced from 226 units to a maximum
of 132 units.
41. That the open space requirement be resolved by locating
six publicly -owned acres in the West Bay Area that
would be satisfactory to the City Council,.and that
this be resolved -no later than the Council meeting
of Monday, June 12,"1978, if possible.•_:
42. That it is recognized that the reduction in density
necessitates revisions of the lot lines in the map,
but that these revisions would go directly to the City
Council for approval..
43. That a drainage and erosion control plan to be approved
by the geological engineer be•include•d, and that this
cover both during and after the project.
Background
At its meeting of March 14, 1977, the City Council approved Amend-
ment No. 477 and Resubdivision No. 537, which established the current
zoning and a plan of development for this site. The plan at that
time was to develop the site with a 226 unit apartment complex.
The Tentative Map of Tract No. 9676 as approved by the City Council
on May 22 will permit a condominium development. However, because
of the reduction in density required under Condition No. 40 as noted
above, the applicant has been required to redesign the project, and
this redesign has necessitated revisions in the configuration of
the lots on the Tentative Map. The City Council recognized that
there would be revisions to the plan necoss•ikai.-d by the reduction
in density and requested that these -revisions be reviewed and ap-
proved directly by the City Council as noted under Condition No. 42
above. The proposed changes are outlined below and summarized in
the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report.